Thorny

I still don’t understand why they refused to go to Ullmark in shootouts over Lehner I don’t care if he was coming in cold. Lehner could simply not stop them

Yes, but I think those factors are all built-in to the principle, though, right? The record is reflective. If we’ve played difficult teams within the 25 games, it’s fitting we have 13 losses. I don’t think the roster we’ve assembled deserves a better fate. This is accounting for said context. It’s reflective, for example, of a young team. If we truly are undergoing the development we seek, if strength of schedule truly is a factor, here - our record will presumably also be reflective of the easier schedule, once it arrives. And assuming our record improves, it doesn’t then mean that, looking back, our record at this time wasn’t actually reflective: it still was/is. The curve would indicate the growth/schedule/system improvement/etc. Good young team getting better wouldn’t mean young team was “(THIS) good all along.” It means it achieved varying results tantamount to what might be expected, given context, at varying points along the way. The heart of the cliche, and that’s what it is, is fundamentally positive, in essence. The idea that you have the ability to control your own destiny. You make you own record. If you control what you can, and manage it well, the record will come to reflect it. The results aren’t potentially being hidden from you based on bad luck. This doesn’t mean we ignore all context for WHY a record is what it is - ie a young team’s struggles meaning that our record could be seen as both deserved yet likely to improve there are lots of indicators others have mentioned that point to us soon improving a LOT

Also, is your contention @nfreemanthat, so far, his work at goalie overall should be judged in your option as “Incomplete”? Is that a correct reading on my part? If so, does that evaluation shift if Comrie comes back and continues to play poorly? Do you then judge the results at the position so far? And if so, does the grade change back to incomplete if he brings in a new guy this offseason? When is the “so far” sample size big enough to say that “SO FAR” he hasn’t adequately addressed goaltending, is I guess my question

The fact he did not establish as a starter as of now undoubtedly IS evidence, though. If you don’t think the fact he hasn’t established as a starter, yet, 9 years after being drafted, has any bearing at all as evidence on the likelihood of him becoming a starter going forward.... ie, that we’d be perceiving the same likelihood from, say, the perspective of a touted prospect, fresh off being drafted, BEFORE said prospect committed 9 years to record of documented inability to seize the position.. we just won’t be able to agree on this one. The fact *I* haven’t seized the starter position is also, an extreme example, of why the “lack of evidence” argument doesn’t hold up on its own. Lack of evidence certainly can be evidence in and of itself - of course it can. The absence of evidence is important if the burden of proof is on Comrie - and it is. He’s not a Starter-Until-Proven-Otherwise. He’s not a starter, until he proves otherwise. If not, you are just asking to prove a negative, “prove he won’t THIS time”. I can’t. He might. But the fact he hasn’t, yet, in the past - over a reasonably large sample of years where he could theoretically have been GRANTED more games had he EARNED them, does in fact work against the likelihood he does in future.

It’s interesting. Wyshynski on the show mentioned that the Devils were much the same last season in many ways but were undone by atrocious GT. It really does sound like we COULD be that team. They found a G though - imperative we do the same

Jeff Marek today mentioned Dahlin as one of the league’s best hitters, and skaters

Is scoring still going up league wide?

position grade forwards A defence B goalie D overall - B OR forwards incomplete defence incomplete goalie incomplete

You logic comparison is poor because, in the case you mentioned, you’d be extrapolating “ good starter” numbers of a very small sample size going forward, over an amount of games he has no history of ever coming close to completing. It can happen, but it’s much less logically sound than comparing a period of time where he failed to establish as a starter in combination with a further, large period of time where the exact same results were achieved again, the burden of proof is on Comrie. Coming in and playing very poorly doesn’t gain benefit of the doubt in light of a career of failing to establish as a starter, for one reason, or another. That can even be for opportunity reasons. My argument isn’t that he’s bad. My argument is that he hasn’t shown the ability to establish as a starter. Until he does, the odds are against it, it’s not fairly classified as an unknown.

I just disagree with you on Comrie. The burden of proof is on him. He’s a 27 year old who’s never established, for one reason or another, as a starter, on multiple teams. Until he proves he’s a starter, he’s NOT a starter. Based on putting up bottom 5 analytics in the league in his games this year, you want me to consider him an “unknown”? that would imo be ridiculous you are just conveniently removing the vast supply of evidence before this season because it doesn’t fit your argument haha

Im always careful to use words like: We talk a lot, deservedly, about what he has had success at. I see no reason to shy away from pointing out the few things at which he so far, has not. Why? By the same token by which you might say the quality of the goaltending could perhaps drastically change over time, by the same principle some of the facets working can go in the opposite direction. I’m not interested in doing that though - I believe in calling it how it looks so far, and in some ways the ranks are looking very good. I look at GT through the same lens. I don’t switch for one with a different tint based on a desired result. The same markers that lead me to torpedo his efforts at GT have me touting his praises for our centre depth. So turns the varying Philosophies of the Rebuild, I suppose.

More data is not needed to say that, thus far, he has failed to adequately address the position. He has not. The results speak for themselves. If we are seriously judging his work thus far at goalie as “incomplete”, there’s no arguing any of it, I’m sorry. Yes, everything he’s done great he’s done great and everything he hasn’t had success at fixing, despite trying, is simply incomplete: no negative inference can be drawn from the fact he hasn’t succeeded in that area, no, reason to think his failure there won’t flip to success in time just because. - - - * I do not need to nor am I trying to formulate an argument as to whether he can, or cannot, choose good goalies, as some sort of definitive rule* Whether or not he can, or not, isn’t relevant to me when my interest in this case is evaluating what *has* or *has not* been done: not merely on the plane of the hypothetical. The entire point of my post in the end was that I believe Adams COULD have likely done better considering how well he has done in other areas. Which is what I said.

This is good to see. It’ll be interesting to see how Rochester does without 2/3rds of that kid line they are forming for their next game (should Kulich get the invite). Clearly development-as-priority remains consistent throughout organization RN.

Adams’ admirable proficiency at righting the ship in so many areas thus far allows us the luxury of not needing to tap dance around admitting the simple fact of what the data is clearly pointing to: he’s bungled GT thus far.

Yes. There’s no rule that says we need only judge a gm based on attempted transactions that were consummated. A bad pass dropped by the D-lineman is still a bad pass and perhaps statistically relevant re: performance analysis Would either of Gibson or Murray represent a good talent / value analysis by Adams? (Actually asking*) He wanted those to happen, right? *ive heard Gibson has been poor at best and Murray doesn’t seem to have played a ton yet Comrie and UPL have so far come in below expectations If they are hanging their hat on knowing Anderson, too old, is a stop gap... I mean ok? Haha. Even then, maybe they thought he’d stay healthy last year. Who knows. If we allow for the possibility that the fact Ullmark was literally negotiating for months means he was actually realistically a signing option within the realm of reasonable possibility - there’s room there to suggest a mis-evaluation. Especially when viewed in context with the other moves or lack there-of at the position, no? I think it paints a pretty compelling argument for a documented lack of aptitude, at the specific act of reasonably addressing the goaltending position. OR He’s just waiting for Levi. Would that be better? Actually asking. The rub is that Kevyn’s lack of aptitude, thus far, at meaningfully addressing the goaltending position is made most glaring by the ringing success he’s had at other areas of the roster. That’s the rub - I don’t buy he can’t do between in net b/c I’ve seen him do better elsewhere.

Pretty much the difference between us and the Jets right now, ya

The assumption might allow for the dismissal of an altogether more frightening potential explanation: KA didn’t think the sub par stop gaps to Levi were... stop gaps at all.

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