ES + SH goals this past season...

[Stoner]

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 said eight or nine blowouts, not seven. It turns out I was right the first time -- it was eight.

 

You're saying 15?!

 

You wrote:

 

"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."

 

82-37 (your count of games in which the Sabres scored two or fewer goals)=45

 

45 divided by 3=15

 

Get your facts straight. And never question my fanhood.

 

That comment got my blood a boilin'.

 

Edit: Damn it all to Toronto -- it was 10. Every time I count, I get a different number! Still, it was nowhere near 15.

[BetweenThePipes00]

If they got shut down and had had a "ton" of games where they got 18 shots and could not generate chances, I'd worry about the offense. The offense will be fine. They probably won't score 10 goals in a game this season, nor will they get shut out 4 times. It was a crappy year all around, and the team was inconsistent as a whole.

It just seems you (Wolf) are arguing the offense is a big problem and the defense is not ... but even if you want to hold the numbers out as an indictment of the offense being great one night and not so great the next, what do they say about the defense? Since they didn't have a lot of shutouts or blowout losses where they allowed 8 or 10, does that mean it was consistently mediocre? If so, don't you think it could get better too?

[Bmwolf21]

I said eight or nine blowouts, not seven. It turns out I was right the first time -- it was eight.

 

You're saying 15?!

 

You wrote:

 

"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."

 

82-37 (your count of games in which the Sabres scored two or fewer goals)=45

 

45 divided by 3=15

 

Get your facts straight. And never question my fanhood.

 

That comments got my blood a boilin'.

Get over yourself. I never "questioned your fanhood," nor do I care if it "got your blood boiling." I questioned where you got your numbers, and questioned why you had to throw in an unnecessary dig at Ryan in a debate about the offense.

 

Yes, I misquoted you when I said seven, not your eight or nine guesstimate. My bad. Either way, both those numbers are wrong. It's not eight or nine. There were 17 games in which they scored 5 or more. (I'll list them if you want. I've already broken the schedule down into a spreadsheet based on goals scored.)

 

And while we're at it, get YOUR facts straight. First, find the number 15 anywhere in my post.

 

Second:

37/82 games scoring 2 or fewer goals = 45%. Pretty close to 1/2.

29/82 games of 4 or more goals = 35%, very close to 1/3.

 

Don't pull out fuzzy math to try to justify your argument.

[Bmwolf21]

If they got shut down and had had a "ton" of games where they got 18 shots and could not generate chances, I'd worry about the offense. The offense will be fine. They probably won't score 10 goals in a game this season, nor will they get shut out 4 times. It was a crappy year all around, and the team was inconsistent as a whole.

It just seems you (Wolf) are arguing the offense is a big problem and the defense is not ... but even if you want to hold the numbers out as an indictment of the offense being great one night and not so great the next, what do they say about the defense? Since they didn't have a lot of shutouts or blowout losses where they allowed 8 or 10, does that mean it was consistently mediocre? If so, don't you think it could get better too?

We're talking apples and oranges here. The debate is about the consistency of the offense and scoring. This has nothing to do with the defense or the goaltending, nor have I EVER said the defense is not a problem. Yes, the defense was consistently mediocre, and I was begging for them to tone down the pond hockey system and play some defense. And if you've read any of my posts you'd see that I don't think real highly of Tallydman as a no.1 pairing, didn't really like Kalinin's consistent brainfarts and lazy play, and was calling for a major overhaul to the defense corps before last season.

[Stoner]

Get over yourself. I never "questioned your fanhood," nor do I care if it "got your blood boiling." I questioned where you got your numbers, and questioned why you had to throw in an unnecessary dig at Ryan in a debate about the offense.

 

Yes, I misquoted you when I said seven, not your eight or nine guesstimate. My bad. Either way, both those numbers are wrong. It's not eight or nine. There were 17 games in which they scored 5 or more. (I'll list them if you want. I've already broken the schedule down into a spreadsheet based on goals scored.)

 

And while we're at it, get YOUR facts straight. First, find the number 15 anywhere in my post.

 

Second:

37/82 games scoring 2 or fewer goals = 45%. Pretty close to 1/2.

29/82 games of 4 or more goals = 35%, very close to 1/3.

 

Don't pull out fuzzy math to try to justify your argument.

 

You must be having a bad day. It happens.

 

A "blowout" is a game in which a team scores five or more goals?! You said you were using my definition: a win of four goals or more.

 

I'm lost.

 

Too bad because I think you are making a strong argument.

 

I'm surprised no one has picked up on the word "padded." I believe your criticism of the "offense" (a silly term in hockey, but that's another debate) goes beyond inconsistency. When you use the word "padded," aren't you suggesting a character problem on this team? They can run up the score at will, to make their team and, more importantly to the point, their individual numbers look better, but on other nights they just don't care enough?

[Stoner]

BM, you wrote that you would give me a pass on the offense since I wasn't "around much this year."

 

How am I supposed to take that?

 

Again, you're going to win the battle and lose the war. Personal attacks and sloppy stats are hurting you.

[Bmwolf21]

You must be having a bad day. It happens.

 

A "blowout" is a game in which a team scores five or more goals?! You said you were using my definition: a win of four goals or more.

 

I'm lost.

 

Too bad because I think you are making a strong argument.

 

I'm surprised no one has picked up on the word "padded." I believe your criticism of the "offense" (a silly term in hockey, but that's another debate) goes beyond inconsistency. When you use the word "padded," aren't you suggesting a character problem on this team? They can run up the score at will, to make their team and, more importantly to the point, their individual numbers look better, but on other nights they just don't care enough?

So in a debate about the offense's efficiency, you feel the number of goals scored in the game is secondary to the margin of victory? Are you a college football pollster? This seems to once again add goaltending and defense to the debate. I'm simply focused on goals scored. Not margin of victory, not how mediocre or inconsistent the defense and goaltending were - just goals scored. (I also find it very disturbing that in a number of those 1-, 2- and 0-goal games we managed tons of SOG. I think that's a number that should scare everyone.)

 

But even by the most recent evolution of your definition of blowout the team had 10 wins of four goals or more. Still more than 8 or 9. ;)

[Bmwolf21]

BM, you wrote that you would give me a pass on the offense since I wasn't "around much this year."

 

How am I supposed to take that?

 

Again, you're going to win the battle and lose the war. Personal attacks and sloppy stats are hurting you.

Being a little thin-skinned, aren't we? I simply meant that you weren't around HERE nearly as much this year as you were in the past, so you may have missed the first time I posted that and we debated the offense's consistency.

 

And sorry, no sloppy stats here. Maybe in your view, because you keep changing your definition of what "is" is, but my numbers have remained constant.

[Stoner]

Being a little thin-skinned, aren't we? I simply meant that you weren't around HERE nearly as much this year as you were in the past, so you may have missed the first time I posted that and we debated the offense's consistency.

 

And sorry, no sloppy stats here. Maybe in your view, because you keep changing your definition of what "is" is, but my numbers have remained constant.

 

Too funny. Who's flaming and "trolling for a fight" now?

 

My definition of a blowout never changed.

 

I will let the peoples decide.

[Bmwolf21]

Too funny. Who's flaming and "trolling for a fight" now?

 

My definition of a blowout never changed.

 

I will let the peoples decide.

Dodge, Dip, Duck, Dive, and Dodge. The dance continues. I guess whatever helps you sleep at night.

 

Keep making things up and throwing stuff at the wall, hoping it will stick.

[Stoner]

Dodge, Dip, Duck, Dive, and Dodge. The dance continues. I guess whatever helps you sleep at night.

 

Keep making things up and throwing stuff at the wall, hoping it will stick.

 

Go study your Ryan Miller Fathead some more.

[Bmwolf21]

Go study your Ryan Miller Fathead some more.

Two hours and that's what you come up with? You're slipping.

[Stoner]

Two hours and that's what you come up with? You're slipping.

 

That's what she said.

[Bmwolf21]

That's what she said.

Well played, Michael Scott - well played...

[Kristian]

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.

Roy had 17 PPA, Pominville had 25 (two PPG for Jason? Seriously? :blink:)

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.

 

But our PP woes are not, and never were, isolated to just being a case of a few players needing to pick it up.

 

Our entire system is hurtin, and it's so deeply entrenched in everyones ways - Regier, Ruff, the players, that I don't see an easy fix for it on the horizon.

 

And before people start talking to me about 05-06, YES! I know! That team had a PP that clicked, but looking at Ruff's teams over the years that team's PP seems more like a fluke than anything else.

 

Our puck moving is slow, and when it's not slow, it's forced. You see guys getting impatient with the puck (Max?) and you see guys along the boards taking that extra second with the puck, putting the PP under contstant pressure instead of dishing it right off the the point man and keep the puck moving.

[nfreeman]

I'm surprised no one has picked up on the word "padded." I believe your criticism of the "offense" (a silly term in hockey, but that's another debate) goes beyond inconsistency. When you use the word "padded," aren't you suggesting a character problem on this team? They can run up the score at will, to make their team and, more importantly to the point, their individual numbers look better, but on other nights they just don't care enough?

 

And now we're on to something. As I've said before, the team's problem last year wasn't "the offense" or "the defense" (and I agree that these terms are pretty inapposite when we're talking hockey -- it was a dearth of mental toughness and leadership directly traceable to last summer's FO CF. The goalscoring/blowout/SOG stats don't matter. The stat that matters is that after xmas we were 3-17 against the eastern conf. playoff teams other than philly and boston. We were also 4-11 from Feb. 23 onward against playoff teams (not counting the season finale when we were already eliminated), when we were trying to make the playoffs.

 

Bottom line: we did not rise to any challenge. We shrunk from each of them. This was a team-wide failure -- ie it's not that the offense held up its end but the defense didn't. Darcy and Lindy realized it and said in their year-ending presser that we needed leadership. I think the team has plenty of talent, but not nearly enough mental toughness and grace under pressure. There was a consistent failure last year to produce on offense or on defense in clutch situations.

 

That's why I would've thought that we were going to add more than just 1 veteran this offseason. I'm still hopeful on this, but with each passing day I'm getting more concerned.

[BetweenThePipes00]

OK, Wolf ... for the record, when you are right, you are right.

I checked it out, and among the five teams that averaged 3 gpg last season the Sabres were held to 2 or less more than any other team:

Ott=28

Mon=30

Det=25

Buf=37

Car=34

So there is no denying that the offensive numbers were skewed by a handful of big games.

 

Still, even if we take away 2 goals from every game the Sabres won by 4 or more, they are still at top 10 offensive team. If we take away 4 goals for the 10-1 win, they are still a top 10 offensive team. I agree with you when you say that even throwing out the numbers, watching this team it was inconsistent in scoring. But I will also say that they were pretty consistent in generating chances and just had some maddening stretches where they could not finish, as you pointed out. So personally, I am not that worried about the offense ... it was inconsistent, but at least it was THERE, there is something to work with.

My concern with the defense is that it was consistently mediocre ... they rarely gave up a huge number but still were in the bottom 10 ... I think Miller bounces back and helps that a bit, but the team defense is a much bigger concern for me than the inconsistent offense.

 

Again, you know I have to argue for the sake of arguing, but the numbers prove you 100 correct on the Sabres offense.

[Bmwolf21]

OK, Wolf ... for the record, when you are right, you are right.

I checked it out, and among the five teams that averaged 3 gpg last season the Sabres were held to 2 or less more than any other team:

Ott=28

Mon=30

Det=25

Buf=37

Car=34

So there is no denying that the offensive numbers were skewed by a handful of big games.

 

Still, even if we take away 2 goals from every game the Sabres won by 4 or more, they are still at top 10 offensive team. If we take away 4 goals for the 10-1 win, they are still a top 10 offensive team. I agree with you when you say that even throwing out the numbers, watching this team it was inconsistent in scoring. But I will also say that they were pretty consistent in generating chances and just had some maddening stretches where they could not finish, as you pointed out. So personally, I am not that worried about the offense ... it was inconsistent, but at least it was THERE, there is something to work with.

My concern with the defense is that it was consistently mediocre ... they rarely gave up a huge number but still were in the bottom 10 ... I think Miller bounces back and helps that a bit, but the team defense is a much bigger concern for me than the inconsistent offense.

 

Again, you know I have to argue for the sake of arguing, but the numbers prove you 100 correct on the Sabres offense.

:thumbsup:

 

I have to hand it to you, BtP - no matter how much I thought the numbers would bear out what most of us saw last year, there was no way I was investing the time or effort to look at anyone else's game-by-game stats. I only had the Sabres' numbers because I started that halfway through the year and was able to update it every few days.

 

On second thought, maybe I should have started looking at the numbers for all the other teams -- maybe that would have helped with last night's bout of insomnia... :wallbash:

 

As for the second point - I absolutely agree about the defense. I think that the problem I have with the defense is that it's not just one thing we can point at as the source of the problems and fix it with one or two players.

 

Some of the problems:

-- Kalinin. I think that, for all his physical talents and experience, dropping Kalinin is going to help -- he (along with Max) is the poster boy for "needing a change of scenery."

-- Tallinder has become our defensive Connolly, unable to stay healthy, which causes the units and players around him to suffer. With Tallinder on the shelf and ineffective for a lot of the time he was in the lineup, Lydman struggled, the rest of the d-pairings got screwed up, the PK unit struggled at times. A healthy and more effective Tallinder should result in a better Lydman, which should help stabilize the D.

-- The lack of a true physical defenseman last year. We've gotten so soft that posters are begging for guys to play out of character - asking guys who are not necessarily gritty or physical to play like that -- and we're begging for someone, anyone to step up and clear the crease and/or slot so our goalies have a fighting chance. Rivet is going to help a lot in this regard, but I'd still like to see a little more grit and growl on the back end. Weber could help there as well, once he's up regular with the Sabres.

-- The system. I know PA and I have clashed over the role Lindy's system plays in Ryan's play and numbers, but I think we've agreed that the pond hockey system doesn't seem to get the job done defensively and probably isn't the best choice for the stretch run and playoffs. (I might be wrong about PA's thoughts on this, but I seem to recall us agreeing on the pond hockey system at one point. I might be wrong.) I don't want to see them go Boston on us and start trapping the hell out of the opposition, but I do want to see this team become capable of locking down a lead. I would be fine with a bunch of 3-1 wins - I don't need to see the Sabres shoot for 6-7 goals every night and win 7-5 games.

 

I think we're taking steps in the right direction toward clearing some of these problems, but unless a couple more moves are made, I think the defense is going to be better but still a work in progress.

[BetweenThePipes00]

And now we're on to something. As I've said before, the team's problem last year wasn't "the offense" or "the defense" (and I agree that these terms are pretty inapposite when we're talking hockey -- it was a dearth of mental toughness and leadership directly traceable to last summer's FO CF. The goalscoring/blowout/SOG stats don't matter. The stat that matters is that after xmas we were 3-17 against the eastern conf. playoff teams other than philly and boston. We were also 4-11 from Feb. 23 onward against playoff teams (not counting the season finale when we were already eliminated), when we were trying to make the playoffs.

 

Bottom line: we did not rise to any challenge. We shrunk from each of them. This was a team-wide failure -- ie it's not that the offense held up its end but the defense didn't. Darcy and Lindy realized it and said in their year-ending presser that we needed leadership. I think the team has plenty of talent, but not nearly enough mental toughness and grace under pressure. There was a consistent failure last year to produce on offense or on defense in clutch situations.

 

That's why I would've thought that we were going to add more than just 1 veteran this offseason. I'm still hopeful on this, but with each passing day I'm getting more concerned.

 

I agree with everything except the bold word. Screw GRACE under pressure ... as far as I am concerned, the last two seasons, even when they were winning, they had too much "grace" and "poise" ... they played passive most of the time and looked to counter-attack, and they lost their edge. Understand, I am not saying they should put together a Ted Sator-type lineup with Maguire and Hartman taking a regular shift and trying to pound people into submission ... I don't even really want them to try to be Anaheim of 2 years ago, they are not built that way and they can't change it over one offseason (nor does it look like they want to). But I do want to see them play with a chip on their shoulder again like they did in 05-06 ... play an aggressive game and don't let the situation paralyze you.

[BetweenThePipes00]

On second thought, maybe I should have started looking at the numbers for all the other teams -- maybe that would have helped with last night's bout of insomnia... :wallbash:

Believe me that's the only reason I did it, I was up with the boy and could not go back to sleep.

 

-- The system. I know PA and I have clashed over the role Lindy's system plays in Ryan's play and numbers, but I think we've agreed that the pond hockey system doesn't seem to get the job done defensively and probably isn't the best choice for the stretch run and playoffs. (I might be wrong about PA's thoughts on this, but I seem to recall us agreeing on the pond hockey system at one point. I might be wrong.) I don't want to see them go Boston on us and start trapping the hell out of the opposition, but I do want to see this team become capable of locking down a lead. I would be fine with a bunch of 3-1 wins - I don't need to see the Sabres shoot for 6-7 goals every night and win 7-5 games.

 

I think this is the biggest point and it is something that can be corrected ... even if the defensemen were the same as last year, which hopefully they will be better too, but the forwards can definitely get better in their own end and make a difference. And I think Lindy's system does account for it, but they have to play it right ... they got used to being able to outscore teams in 06-07 and lost their way ... hopefully a long summer will help them buy in to the fact they have to play both ends.

[Bmwolf21]

Believe me that's the only reason I did it, I was up with the boy and could not go back to sleep.

Couldn't fall asleep until after two last night, and when I did it was fitful sleep, and I was up and about around 430. Been pounding the keys since then, trying to get some stuff done before the little guy gets up.

 

I think this is the biggest point and it is something that can be corrected ... even if the defensemen were the same as last year, which hopefully they will be better too, but the forwards can definitely get better in their own end and make a difference. And I think Lindy's system does account for it, but they have to play it right ... they got used to being able to outscore teams in 06-07 and lost their way ... hopefully a long summer will help them buy in to the fact they have to play both ends.

Amen.

[Stoner]

OK, Wolf ... for the record, when you are right, you are right.

I checked it out, and among the five teams that averaged 3 gpg last season the Sabres were held to 2 or less more than any other team:

Ott=28

Mon=30

Det=25

Buf=37

Car=34

So there is no denying that the offensive numbers were skewed by a handful of big games.

 

Yeah, his numbers were dead-on, except he thought the Sabres "blew out" opponents 15 times. Sorry, couldn't resist. A womanly trait, reminding a guy of his mistake, yes, but what the hell, I have a mangina.

 

I don't get this "skewed" business. 82 games seems like a good sample size to evaluate offensive productivity. I'm actually pretty amazed at how many times these top offensive clubs got held to two goals or fewer. Were they all, thus, "inconsistent"?

[Stoner]

And now we're on to something. As I've said before, the team's problem last year wasn't "the offense" or "the defense" (and I agree that these terms are pretty inapposite when we're talking hockey -- it was a dearth of mental toughness and leadership directly traceable to last summer's FO CF. The goalscoring/blowout/SOG stats don't matter. The stat that matters is that after xmas we were 3-17 against the eastern conf. playoff teams other than philly and boston. We were also 4-11 from Feb. 23 onward against playoff teams (not counting the season finale when we were already eliminated), when we were trying to make the playoffs.

 

Bottom line: we did not rise to any challenge. We shrunk from each of them. This was a team-wide failure -- ie it's not that the offense held up its end but the defense didn't. Darcy and Lindy realized it and said in their year-ending presser that we needed leadership. I think the team has plenty of talent, but not nearly enough mental toughness and grace under pressure. There was a consistent failure last year to produce on offense or on defense in clutch situations.

 

That's why I would've thought that we were going to add more than just 1 veteran this offseason. I'm still hopeful on this, but with each passing day I'm getting more concerned.

 

Good post. Do the Sabres get a bit of a pass on the "mental toughness" issue? Something very few people have talked about is how drained the team must have been after making back to back trips to the ECF and coming up short. It was 1999-2000 all over again. That's half a season right there that the Sabres played that many other teams did not. I honestly expect this team to come back with a fury and a vengeance this season, physically and mentally rested. I can feel it myself in my posts. I am psyched. Last year was a very draining one for most fans.

[BetweenThePipes00]

I don't get this "skewed" business. 82 games seems like a good sample size to evaluate offensive productivity. I'm actually pretty amazed at how many times these top offensive clubs got held to two goals or fewer. Were they all, thus, "inconsistent"?

 

 

Well the nature of the game is that they will be inconsistent ... the Sabres were, however, MORE inconsistent, than the other top scoring teams ... or, if we agree that all of them are going to be inconsistent to a point, they were RELATIVELY inconsistent compared to the other top scoring teams, that's all we are saying.

 

Do the Sabres get a bit of a pass on the "mental toughness" issue? Something very few people have talked about is how drained the team must have been after making back to back trips to the ECF and coming up short. It was 1999-2000 all over again. That's half a season right there that the Sabres played that many other teams did not. I honestly expect this team to come back with a fury and a vengeance this season, physically and mentally rested. I can feel it myself in my posts. I am psyched. Last year was a very draining one for most fans.

I think that was definitely a factor ... I also think that too many people are assuming the kids learned NOTHING last season and will return the exact same players ... but this fury and vengeance you speak of ... like I said in my other post, I HOPE to see it, it has been missing, but I can't say I 100% EXPECT it. But I am psyched as well.

[Bmwolf21]

Yeah, his numbers were dead-on, except he thought the Sabres "blew out" opponents 15 times. Sorry, couldn't resist. A womanly trait, reminding a guy of his mistake, yes, but what the hell, I have a mangina.

Stay classy, PA.

 

Keep shouting that I was wrong, and keep shifting your criteria. Maybe somewhere, somehow someone will believe you.