LabattBlue Posted July 17, 2008 Report Posted July 17, 2008 How about a little hockey talk... I found the order of the top 7 goal scorers on the Sabres last year when only counting ES & SH goals somewhat surprising... TOTAL GOALS - PP GOALS = ES + SH Roy 32 - 6 = 26 Pominville 27 - 2 = 25 Hecht 22 - 3 = 19 Paille 19 - 0 = 19 Vanek 36 - 19 = 17 Stafford 16 - 1 = 15 Kotalik 23 - 12 = 11 In summary... -Roy, Pominville, Hecht & Paille(seriously) were all excellent in this regard. -Vanek and Kotalik are too good in terms of goal scoring ability not to be more effective 5 on 5. I can somewhat live with Kotalik's 5 on 5 production for 2 mil or so per year, but Vanek flat out has to be a LOT better in terms of goal scoring when at even strength. -At the same time that Roy and Pominville were very good 5 on 5, they need to be better on the PP. This all revolves around coming up with a new PP strategy other than throw the puck to the net and hope Vanek tips it. -One last note looking at it from the other direction, Gaustad only had 5 ES goals, Connolly 3 ES goals and Spacek 2 ES goals.
LabattBlue Posted July 17, 2008 Author Report Posted July 17, 2008 Bored? :P After Paille signed I was looking at his stats and that is what got me going. Bored? Asolutely...Thankfully it is summer and the weather is nice. This is the slowest time of year for sports. Can't wait for Bills training camp to start.
inkman Posted July 17, 2008 Report Posted July 17, 2008 This is the slowest time of year for sports. That's why we are having a garage sale! :thumbsup: Woot! :thumbdown:
WNY-Enforcer Posted July 17, 2008 Report Posted July 17, 2008 How about a little hockey talk... I found the order of the top 7 goal scorers on the Sabres last year when only counting ES & SH goals somewhat surprising... TOTAL GOALS - PP GOALS = ES + SH Roy 32 - 6 = 26 Pominville 27 - 2 = 25 Hecht 22 - 3 = 19 Paille 19 - 0 = 19 Vanek 36 - 19 = 17 Stafford 16 - 1 = 15 Kotalik 23 - 12 = 11 In summary... -Roy, Pominville, Hecht & Paille(seriously) were all excellent in this regard. -Vanek and Kotalik are too good in terms of goal scoring ability not to be more effective 5 on 5. I can somewhat live with Kotalik's 5 on 5 production for 2 mil or so per year, but Vanek flat out has to be a LOT better in terms of goal scoring when at even strength. -At the same time that Roy and Pominville were very good 5 on 5, they need to be better on the PP. This all revolves around coming up with a new PP strategy other than throw the puck to the net and hope Vanek tips it. -One last note looking at it from the other direction, Gaustad only had 5 ES goals, Connolly 3 ES goals and Spacek 2 ES goals. I agree, but this also should point out how important our special teams are. With the 4th best offense in the year last year, our boys are capable of big time goal numbers, but seems like we get them way more on the power play than anywhere else out of our stars. It is important that we get them 5 v 5 as well. That being said I'm on the tail end of a 38 hour sleepless period and calling it a night.
carpandean Posted July 17, 2008 Report Posted July 17, 2008 I haven't looked into the stats, but I'm willing to bet Derek and Jason have a lot of PP assists. Many of Vanek's pp goals where banked off of him by one of those two.
deluca67 Posted July 17, 2008 Report Posted July 17, 2008 How about a little hockey talk... I found the order of the top 7 goal scorers on the Sabres last year when only counting ES & SH goals somewhat surprising... TOTAL GOALS - PP GOALS = ES + SH Roy 32 - 6 = 26 Pominville 27 - 2 = 25 Hecht 22 - 3 = 19 Paille 19 - 0 = 19 Vanek 36 - 19 = 17 Stafford 16 - 1 = 15 Kotalik 23 - 12 = 11 In summary... -Roy, Pominville, Hecht & Paille(seriously) were all excellent in this regard. -Vanek and Kotalik are too good in terms of goal scoring ability not to be more effective 5 on 5. I can somewhat live with Kotalik's 5 on 5 production for 2 mil or so per year, but Vanek flat out has to be a LOT better in terms of goal scoring when at even strength. -At the same time that Roy and Pominville were very good 5 on 5, they need to be better on the PP. This all revolves around coming up with a new PP strategy other than throw the puck to the net and hope Vanek tips it. -One last note looking at it from the other direction, Gaustad only had 5 ES goals, Connolly 3 ES goals and Spacek 2 ES goals. Vanek scored 36 goals. Unless the NHL has changed something I think they all count the same. This sounds eerily familiar to the complaints about Satan way back when from those convinced all of his 200+ goals as a Sabre were empty net goals. I don't think Vanek himself or anyone else for that matter is happy with how the season played out for Vanek. There were many parts of his game that suffered throughout the season. He battled back to put together a pretty decent statistical season. One the Sabres need him to improve upon.
Bmwolf21 Posted July 17, 2008 Report Posted July 17, 2008 I agree, but this also should point out how important our special teams are. With the 4th best offense in the year last year, our boys are capable of big time goal numbers, but seems like we get them way more on the power play than anywhere else out of our stars. It is important that we get them 5 v 5 as well. That being said I'm on the tail end of a 38 hour sleepless period and calling it a night. The 4th-best offense was a mirage. They excelled at running up the score and padding their stats but were very inconsistent for much of the season. I haven't looked into the stats, but I'm willing to bet Derek and Jason have a lot of PP assists. Many of Vanek's pp goals where banked off of him by one of those two. Roy had 17 PPA, Pominville had 25 (two PPG for Jason? Seriously? :blink:) Vanek scored 36 goals. Unless the NHL has changed something I think they all count the same. This sounds eerily familiar to the complaints about Satan way back when from those convinced all of his 200+ goals as a Sabre were empty net goals. I don't think Vanek himself or anyone else for that matter is happy with how the season played out for Vanek. There were many parts of his game that suffered throughout the season. He battled back to put together a pretty decent statistical season. One the Sabres need him to improve upon. The goals do count the same, but what's that old mantra - play 'em even 5-on-5 and win it on the special teams? Kotalik, Vanek and co all need to pick it up on the PP. I'll have to look at Vanek's splits to see when he scored his goals, but I still feel his season was a bit disappointing, even with 36 goals. If he doesn't go on a hot streak in February (13 G, 20 pts in 15 games) he has a very average season overall. I hope he is unhappy, and I hope Lindy and co are unhappy. I hope the FO is unhappy to the point of wanting to bring in a veteran with a bit of a scoring touch who can help Vanek mentally, with game prep, everything.
Knightrider Posted July 17, 2008 Report Posted July 17, 2008 After Paille signed I was looking at his stats and that is what got me going. Bored? Absolutely...Thankfully it is summer and the weather is nice. This is the slowest time of year for sports. Can't wait for Bills training camp to start. Totally agree about the summer. WRT the thread, each player has a role to play. I suspect teams were keying on Vanek last year, which gave Roy more room. I'd be interested in seeing the ES & SH numbers with assists factored in, if you are still bored...
tom webster Posted July 17, 2008 Report Posted July 17, 2008 Two things, 1)I have been calling for Pominville to play up front on the power play for two years. Unfortunately, the ineptness of the point men has forced him back there. 2) I have never been one to question quality of goals, yards, etc. but I would be very surprised if Paille's 19 goals didn't turn out ot be his career high after he is done playing.
LabattBlue Posted July 17, 2008 Author Report Posted July 17, 2008 Two things, 1)I have been calling for Pominville to play up front on the power play for two years. Unfortunately, the ineptness of the point men has forced him back there. 2) I have never been one to question quality of goals, yards, etc. but I would be very surprised if Paille's 19 goals didn't turn out ot be his career high after he is done playing. On #1, I agree 100% and have been calling for the same. Someone with Pominville's goal scoring touch needs to be down low on the PP. Unfortunately whomever is in charge of the PP continues to be fixated on sticking Vanek in front of the net and playing tip drill and also playing Gaustad on the PP which is a big waste. On #2, you could be correct on Paille, he never even scored 19 goals in the AHL. I don't expect a lot of upside in his game in terms of goal scoring. 15 to the low 20's will probably be his target range each year.
X. Benedict Posted July 17, 2008 Report Posted July 17, 2008 Two things, 1)I have been calling for Pominville to play up front on the power play for two years. Unfortunately, the ineptness of the point men has forced him back there. 2) I have never been one to question quality of goals, yards, etc. but I would be very surprised if Paille's 19 goals didn't turn out ot be his career high after he is done playing. I would be very surprised if that is a career high, unless he stays on the 4th line. Chipping in 19 goals playing 12-14 minutes a game is pretty good. I think he could string together some 20 goals seasons if given a regular shift. He seems to have a nose for the net more than a scorer's touch.
Stoner Posted July 17, 2008 Report Posted July 17, 2008 The 4th-best offense was a mirage. They excelled at running up the score and padding their stats but were very inconsistent for much of the season. Well, there you go again. Don't good offensive teams tend to "run up the score"? Would you prefer they not score so many goals? How is this "problem" remedied? Would you be happier with a lower goals-for average? Let's compare Buffalo and Ottawa, the league's highest scoring team during the regular season. Ottawa scored four goals or more 33 times, Buffalo 27. Ottawa "blew out" oppponents (defined as winning by four goals or more) seven times, the Sabres eight (or nine -- I lost count near the end looking at the results and don't have time to go back and confirm). Do you also have a problem with Ottawa's offense? I think your memory is skewed (or skewered?) by a relatively small number of routs, like the 10-1 win over Atlanta and 8-1 win over Carolina. I don't think a couple of results like that mean the Sabres "excelled" at running up the score. How is "inconsistency" defined? (And why have I suddenly turned into that Chris Farley character on SNL with the pantomimed quote marks?) There must be a statistical way of showing inconsistency, but the whole issue just boggles my mind. We both know the problem in Buffalo is keeping the puck out of the net. But you are always hell-bent to take Ryan off the hook, so it shouldn't be surprising.
shrader Posted July 17, 2008 Report Posted July 17, 2008 2) I have never been one to question quality of goals, yards, etc. but I would be very surprised if Paille's 19 goals didn't turn out ot be his career high after he is done playing. And I can live with that as long as the defensive side of his game continues to improve. That's his strength and its something we need badly. I've been in the Paille camp since I watched him take over a game in Boston back in 06-07, a couple games before he got hurt. He didn't take that game over by scoring goals.
Taro T Posted July 17, 2008 Report Posted July 17, 2008 I would be very surprised if that is a career high, unless he stays on the 4th line. Chipping in 19 goals playing 12-14 minutes a game is pretty good. I think he could string together some 20 goals seasons if given a regular shift. He seems to have a nose for the net more than a scorer's touch. I'd expect to see some 20+ seasons but I'd be very surprised to see him ever hit 30. More often than not, I'd expect 15-22 out of him.
BetweenThePipes00 Posted July 17, 2008 Report Posted July 17, 2008 They need to do everything better, period. We can twist the numbers 37 different ways to come up with THE thing they have to do better ... for instance, the Sabres scored 27 fewer goals on the road than they did at home ... so does that mean if they just score a little more on the road they will be fine? No, it's always a combination of things ... To PA's point, the problem was not blowouts skewing numbers and the offense being inconsistent ... the problem was when they got a 3-1 lead, even at home, they would blow it and lose 4-3. Or even a 2-1 lead ... if they blow that 3rd period lead and lose, it's not the fault of an inconsistent offense ... the other guys get paid too, you're not going to score 4 every night ... if they grow up and learn how to lock down a third-period lead, especially at home, that will solve a lot of problems, even if Vanek does do most of his damage on the PP and they pad their stats with a couple blowouts.
apuszczalowski Posted July 17, 2008 Report Posted July 17, 2008 Well, there you go again. Don't good offensive teams tend to "run up the score"? Would you prefer they not score so many goals? How is this "problem" remedied? Would you be happier with a lower goals-for average? Let's compare Buffalo and Ottawa, the league's highest scoring team during the regular season. Ottawa scored four goals or more 33 times, Buffalo 27. Ottawa "blew out" oppponents (defined as winning by four goals or more) seven times, the Sabres eight (or nine -- I lost count near the end looking at the results and don't have time to go back and confirm). Do you also have a problem with Ottawa's offense? I think your memory is skewed (or skewered?) by a relatively small number of routs, like the 10-1 win over Atlanta and 8-1 win over Carolina. I don't think a couple of results like that mean the Sabres "excelled" at running up the score. How is "inconsistency" defined? (And why have I suddenly turned into that Chris Farley character on SNL with the pantomimed quote marks?) There must be a statistical way of showing inconsistency, but the whole issue just boggles my mind. We both know the problem in Buffalo is keeping the puck out of the net. But you are always hell-bent to take Ryan off the hook, so it shouldn't be surprising. I agree with what Wolf was saying, they were horribly inconsistent, and those blow outs do skewer the stats. Buffalo had many games were they would go on a scoring spree and score 4+ goals while giving up only 1-3 goals, but then they would go on long stretches were it looked like they were struggling to score 1-2 goals a game. Now yes they were the 4th highest scoring offence, but that means nothing because they weren't the 4th best team, they were not even close to that, which to me, means that the title of 4th best offence was not exactly accurate, or meaningful
shrader Posted July 17, 2008 Report Posted July 17, 2008 Now yes they were the 4th highest scoring offence, but that means nothing because they weren't the 4th best team, they were not even close to that, which to me, means that the title of 4th best offence was not exactly accurate, or meaningful It has plenty of meaning and is completely accurate. It is what it is. They scored more than 26 other teams, so they are in fact the 4th best offense. Obviously that doesn't equate to being the 4th best team because we're leaving a very vital bit of information out of the equation: defense
tom webster Posted July 17, 2008 Report Posted July 17, 2008 And I can live with that as long as the defensive side of his game continues to improve. That's his strength and its something we need badly. I've been in the Paille camp since I watched him take over a game in Boston back in 06-07, a couple games before he got hurt. He didn't take that game over by scoring goals. I hope you know that I am fine with that also. I see Paille being the third left winger on this team, occasionally filling in on the second line.
shrader Posted July 17, 2008 Report Posted July 17, 2008 I hope you know that I am fine with that also. I see Paille being the third left winger on this team, occasionally filling in on the second line. I've never really been all that sure of your view on Paille, but I didn't view that comment as a shot at him. But anyway, those 2nd-3rd liners are the kind of role players that can make or break a team. I love the price tag too. It gives him a ton of incentive to go out there and work his ass off for the next contract (which he did this past year) and it gives the team that extra bit of flexibility to work out deals with the other guys.
Bmwolf21 Posted July 17, 2008 Report Posted July 17, 2008 Well, there you go again. Don't good offensive teams tend to "run up the score"? Would you prefer they not score so many goals? How is this "problem" remedied? Would you be happier with a lower goals-for average? Let's compare Buffalo and Ottawa, the league's highest scoring team during the regular season. Ottawa scored four goals or more 33 times, Buffalo 27. Ottawa "blew out" oppponents (defined as winning by four goals or more) seven times, the Sabres eight (or nine -- I lost count near the end looking at the results and don't have time to go back and confirm). Do you also have a problem with Ottawa's offense? I think your memory is skewed (or skewered?) by a relatively small number of routs, like the 10-1 win over Atlanta and 8-1 win over Carolina. I don't think a couple of results like that mean the Sabres "excelled" at running up the score. How is "inconsistency" defined? (And why have I suddenly turned into that Chris Farley character on SNL with the pantomimed quote marks?) There must be a statistical way of showing inconsistency, but the whole issue just boggles my mind. We both know the problem in Buffalo is keeping the puck out of the net. But you are always hell-bent to take Ryan off the hook, so it shouldn't be surprising. I'll give you a pass on the offense since you weren't around much this year. But I've actually done the research on this, and there are more blowouts than you'd think., and a high number of games where the offense was feeble at best. (I'm also not sure where you got your numbers, because Buffalo had a hell of a lot more than seven "blowouts" by your definition.) I also don't know why you wanted to fan the flames on the Ryan thing, but that was uncalled for. I sure as hell don't agree that "the problem in Buffalo" is keeping the puck out of the net. I'm not drinking the "Sabres' offense is so potent" kool-aid that some are, not when I watched this team abuse goalies one night then go on to abuse goalposts the next night and then turn backup goaltenders into Vezina Trophy winners. Then again I know how hellbent you are to lay all the blame on Ryan for every goal that's scored on Buffalo, so it's not surprising. As for the offensive numbers: Buffalo scored 5 or more goals 17 times. Buffalo scored 4 goals in a game 12 times. ------------------------------------------------------- Total = 29 games of 4+ goals, or 35% of the schedule. The Sabres were shutout 4 times. Held to 1 goal 14 times. Managed only 2 goals 19 times. ---------------------------------- Total = 37 games where the team scored two or fewer goals (45% of the season.) So the vast majority of the season (80%) was at one extreme or the other. No consistency.
Taro T Posted July 17, 2008 Report Posted July 17, 2008 I'll give you a pass on the offense since you weren't around much this year. But I've actually done the research on this, and there are more blowouts than you'd think., and a high number of games where the offense was feeble at best. (I'm also not sure where you got your numbers, because Buffalo had a hell of a lot more than seven "blowouts" by your definition.) I also don't know why you wanted to fan the flames on the Ryan thing, but that was uncalled for. I sure as hell don't agree that "the problem in Buffalo" is keeping the puck out of the net. I'm not drinking the "Sabres' offense is so potent" kool-aid that some are, not when I watched this team abuse goalies one night then go on to abuse goalposts the next night and then turn backup goaltenders into Vezina Trophy winners. Then again I know how hellbent you are to lay all the blame on Ryan for every goal that's scored on Buffalo, so it's not surprising. As for the offensive numbers: Buffalo scored 5 or more goals 17 times. Buffalo scored 4 goals in a game 12 times. ------------------------------------------------------- Total = 29 games of 4+ goals, or 35% of the schedule. The Sabres were shutout 4 times. Held to 1 goal 14 times. Managed only 2 goals 19 times. ---------------------------------- Total = 37 games where the team scored two or fewer goals (45% of the season.) So the vast majority of the season (80%) was at one extreme or the other. No consistency. BM, I'm not sure I follow your logic here. The league average goals per game was 2.72 and the Sabres averaged 3.06. It's not terribly surprising the Sabres only ended up with exactly 3 goals 20% of the time. Especially when they scored 2-4 goals well over 50% of the time. I agree they were wildly erratic this season, but I don't necessarily draw that conclusion from the numbers you present. A stat that supports the inconsistancy issue better (and is more in line w/ BtP's argument) is that they were nearly in the top 5 in getting wins when trailing after 1 and were in the bottom 5 in getting wins when leading after 2.
BetweenThePipes00 Posted July 17, 2008 Report Posted July 17, 2008 I'll give you a pass on the offense since you weren't around much this year. But I've actually done the research on this, and there are more blowouts than you'd think., and a high number of games where the offense was feeble at best. (I'm also not sure where you got your numbers, because Buffalo had a hell of a lot more than seven "blowouts" by your definition.) I also don't know why you wanted to fan the flames on the Ryan thing, but that was uncalled for. I sure as hell don't agree that "the problem in Buffalo" is keeping the puck out of the net. I'm not drinking the "Sabres' offense is so potent" kool-aid that some are, not when I watched this team abuse goalies one night then go on to abuse goalposts the next night and then turn backup goaltenders into Vezina Trophy winners. Then again I know how hellbent you are to lay all the blame on Ryan for every goal that's scored on Buffalo, so it's not surprising. As for the offensive numbers: Buffalo scored 5 or more goals 17 times. Buffalo scored 4 goals in a game 12 times. ------------------------------------------------------- Total = 29 games of 4+ goals, or 35% of the schedule. The Sabres were shutout 4 times. Held to 1 goal 14 times. Managed only 2 goals 19 times. ---------------------------------- Total = 37 games where the team scored two or fewer goals (45% of the season.) So the vast majority of the season (80%) was at one extreme or the other. No consistency. the only problem with all that is that, like I said, we can twist those same numbers you use either way ... given your numbers, that means there were 16 games where the Sabres scored 3 goals ... which raises a couple points: 1. Only 5 teams averaged 3 goals per game, so it could be argued this is ABOVE average production, which would mean in 45 games, or 55% of the time, they were above average offensively. 2. In those 16 games, the Sabres went 6-10. If only 5 teams are averaging 3 gpg, I would argue you need to be a .500 team at least when you score 3 times. It's obviously not easy to do. I am NOT blaming Miller, I am blaming an inexperienced team that could not lock it down with a lead, especially at home ... two of those losses when they scored 3 times were the blown leads on consecutive nights to the Rangers and Flyers ... I would guess there were at least a couple more where they came-from-ahead ... if they hold those leads, they make the playoffs. Not saying I am 100%right and you are dead wrong. Saying it's never as cut-and-dried as offense or defense. They need to get better at both ends.
Bmwolf21 Posted July 17, 2008 Report Posted July 17, 2008 Maybe we have different definitions of consistency, but I can't label any team that gets held to two or fewer goals in nearly half their games but also records a blowout in a third of their other games is consistent. I really can't label last year's Sabres' offense as consistent after watching them with the naked eye. I really don't see how stats concerning the leading/trailing after one/two periods sheds more light on the team's goals for and offensive numbers, nor am I saying that they should have scored exactly three goals in XX% of their games and their record should have been XX or XY. Personally I think the numbers speak for themselves. The argument that keeps getting tossed around is that the Sabres are a top offensive team, and we only have to worry about the defense and goalies, but that's clearly not the case. We had a ton of games where the offense simply didn't show up, unlike the previous year. We also had enough major blowouts to skew the total goals-for number.
Bmwolf21 Posted July 17, 2008 Report Posted July 17, 2008 the only problem with all that is that, like I said, we can twist those same numbers you use either way ... given your numbers, that means there were 16 games where the Sabres scored 3 goals ... which raises a couple points:1. Only 5 teams averaged 3 goals per game, so it could be argued this is ABOVE average production, which would mean in 45 games, or 55% of the time, they were above average offensively. 2. In those 16 games, the Sabres went 6-10. If only 5 teams are averaging 3 gpg, I would argue you need to be a .500 team at least when you score 3 times. It's obviously not easy to do. I am NOT blaming Miller, I am blaming an inexperienced team that could not lock it down with a lead, especially at home ... two of those losses when they scored 3 times were the blown leads on consecutive nights to the Rangers and Flyers ... I would guess there were at least a couple more where they came-from-ahead ... if they hold those leads, they make the playoffs. Not saying I am 100%right and you are dead wrong. Saying it's never as cut-and-dried as offense or defense. They need to get better at both ends. Just to clarify - in those 16 games where the team scored exactly 3 goals, the Sabres were 6-6-4, not 6-10. I know it's semantics, but the league (in an asinine fashion, I admit) wants to count OT/SO losses separately from regulation losses.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.