IKnowPhysics

Agreed. I've recently befriended someone in analytics and had a number of good conversations with them on the topic. This sounds healthier than a lot of arrangements they described in the front offices of professional sports. They indicated that egos, personality differences, closed-mindedness, ultra-cut-throat internal competition, and general ***** management culture and/or player culture ruin many, many opportunities for positive data-driven growth within franchises. KA and DG seem like they're committed to building culture first; hopefully a positive culture extends to and within the analytics department.

The reasoning is sound, but the NHL player market is overboard irrational. Offer sheets have been one-off flukes, not ever driven by league-wide economic environment, and perceived as acts of violence and almost immediately perceived as overcompensating for the player. There have been only 10 offer sheets signed since the year 2000 and only two in the past eight years; only two players of the 10 have not been matched (Penner 2007 1st and 3rd; Kotkaniemi 2021 1st and 3rd). Is it possible that a few offer sheets are signed this year? Perhaps. But they'll be on a player-by-player basis. And without the Sabres 3rd, I don't see us making any meaningful moves that won't be matched (unless we do something realll dumb, which we won't).

Logical me: Agreed, 100%. Over-caffeinated, out-of-the-playoffs me: Law & Order: SDS Fun Police over here Let me get my pseudoscience on, mannn.

Also, by that analysis: 16+28+41 could get 4-5 9+16+28+41 still wouldn't get 1 And, just a fun thought, it'd be bonkers to fully convert to get 2-3OA and 13-18OA -or- 4-5OA and 9OA if KA and the gang thought they could get studs. The latter is pretty attractive: trade 16/28/41 for 4OA and take 9OA. And this is without packaging anyone in.

By that analysis: 9+16 could get 2-3 (previous: 1) 16+28 could get 7-8 (previous: 6) 28+41 could get 18 (previous: 13) Seems within the bounds of reason. You still don't see many trades moving down from 2-3 in practice though, but the value seems right.

The analysis is well founded. But GMs definitely don't use it ubiquitously and religiously. 1OA, even 2 and 3OA, are wayyy overvalued in the real draft economy, such that 9 and 16 probably wouldn't get much higher than 5OA (plus maybe a late 2nd at best). Probably because marketing. And that no GM wants to be known for unknowingly trading away the next unexpected phenom whomever. But it also makes for fun conjecture.

It's not. I'm too lazy to out-lazy my lazy thinking.

You want the earlier pick, which means you don't want Vegas to win the lottery. Several reasons: You want the prospect in the system one year earlier. Better development options, including stacking Rochester if that's what's best. You don't want to dilute this year's draft capital. We have (pre-lottery) 9ish, 16ish, 28ish, and 41. I get that 16 is actually 18, but I'm lazy. That's a lot of ammo if we decide to move up. Loosely speaking, from Shuckers' 2011 draft value paper, picks 9 and 16 are worth 1st overall. 16 and 28 are worth 6th overall. 28 and 41 are worth 13th overall. You can make all of those moves and still select two 1st round picks. Not saying we'd get that or do that, but three 1sts is nothing to sneeze at trade-wise. Equally, it's also an enormous amount of potential return if we decide to move down. BOS, CGY, CAR, COL, and FLA definitely do not have their own 1st round picks. CHI, MIN, NYR, and VGK may not end up with their picks. That's a lot of teams that may want to move back into the first round. Vegas could be a better team next year compared to the delicious meltdown they just incurred; few expected them to do that this year. This year's pick is likely better value, and even if I'm wrong, they won't be so much worse next year as to make it worth waiting.

I certainly could be wrong. I thought it was: First round playoff losers that did not win the division title, followed by first round playoff losers that did win the division title.

Based. I'm not on the *****-on-Jack train because we don't have all the details of what happened in Buffalo. BUT I am licking my chops for LV to put that first rounder squarely at #15 overall (maybe 16 because Canucks), which would give us like #9, #15, and a with hopeful early FLA playoff exit, #24. That, combined with our #41, gives us a lot of draft capital to move around to take specific players. So for the moment, I'm vested in Jack being a waste of both ice time and cap space.

Congratulations to former first overall pick Rasmus Dahlin on becoming the fastest player in league history to reach the level of Superstar Producer from Dumb (52 games).

lol

Welp, at least theirs suck more. I don't mind most of the specific details on ours, and I still love Hairy Buffalo, but the cream color jersey heralds an era of cotton jerseys that simply never existed during our frachise's history. It poses. I'd rather have seen strict Adidas adaptations of both teams' OG 1970 jerseys, proper crests and all, maybe slap a QEW highway sign patch on the upper chest, and call it good. They'd look better, sell better, and history better.

I'll add that I've had other players stick me in the nuts, and when it happens, there's nothing you want to do more than to pound the other guy's face.

Damn sure did. I'd be mad too. If I were in Cozens' position, I'd take that fine every time.

NHL rinks: Buffalo (Sabres), Los Angeles (Sabres, draft), Anaheim (Sabres), San Jose, Minnesota (Sabres), Philadelphia, Florida (draft), Dallas Non-NHL pro rinks: Green Bay, Rosemead, Cincinnati, Providence College rinks: Kohl, Camp Randall, Lynah, Ritter

This is precisely why "on pace" is used, so one can describe performance without it being convoluted by games absent. We all know the shortcomings of extrapolating future performance from past performance, but in conversation, it's still easier to understand and compare goals-per-82-games than spouting GF/60. And if he goes cold, his pace will change. But, alright, let's do the other thing. Among players with more than 200min of 5v5 (~15GP), Jeff's GF/60 is 1.46, which puts him at 14th best in the league. Ralph Krueger's P% last season was 0.285, which is worse than the Sabres worst P% (2014) of 0.317.

Pulling out this museum piece. Ralph Krueger was fired and top-line Jeff Skinner is currently on pace for a 36 goal season.

VGK appears to be pulling a Kucherov by putting Mark Stone on LTIR until playoffs to free up cap space to activate Eichel and Martinez: https://www.dailyfaceoff.com/ice-breakers-could-stone-injury-open-space-for-vegas-to-activate-eichel/: They'd still need to clear another ~1.45M more.

Ah yes, the team that commemorates every Civil War battle fought in Ohio by paying more than their team salary in music rights to AC/DC.

My first thought would be to look at any differences in personnel usage in those situations. Granato typically doesn't linematch, so if he shifted 5v5 personnel based on game situation it would be notable. Not just defense, but forwards too. I'd also look for turn over and takeaway rates- are we giving up the puck or are we not taking away the puck compared to our average?

"Advanced stats are meaningless... there's no question why we have bad advanced stats." Let's reword that thought as "I think the roster's bad enough that roster improvement would make a bigger impact than analytics-driven game situation coaching decisions" and call it square.