Darcy sez

[Stoner]

Darcy's appearance on WGR on Friday was a treasure trove of intriguing comments. In bold are some good questions for board debate.

 

1. "We thrive because we keep the same coach." Have the Sabres thrived under Ruff? Darcy alleged that the Sabres have the fourth-best record since the lockout. Bulldog's obvious reply was that that includes two seasons out of the playoffs and one over-the-top Presidents' Trophy team throwing off the numbers.

 

2. Keeping Ruff allows the Sabres to be better off with a "process of continuous improvement." Have the Sabres continuously improved under Ruff, before or after the lockout, and is the expectation of continuous improvement under Ruff in years to come a reasonable one?

 

3. Darcy admitted he knows what the media is/are saying about him and the team, not because he reads/listens to it but because he has Mike Gilbert tell him. Does this seem like a good use of Darcy's time/energy? Is his secretary's name Woods?

 

4. Darcy says he knows that the perception of the Sabres is that they don't make many moves, at the deadline or otherwise. He had this stat handy: there were 52 transactions on deadline day, and he made two of them. He said this makes the Sabres "above average" in activity. He also claimed that NHL teams turn over their rosters completely every four to five years. The question here isn't whether that's true (it's not; 11 Sabres remain from 05-06), but why does Darcy think it's true? Does he really believe he aggressively manages change here and keeps things "fresh"?

 

5. Here's the big one. Does Darcy have an almost evangelical faith in what he's doing -- he's right and he doesn't care what people think, and one day the Cup will be his/ours -- or is he just BSing the fans?

[R_Dudley]

Classic beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

 

1.) Do we know his definition of thrive ? If record is in the top 8 vs top 4 still may fit his definition

 

2.) Okay this one is a head scratcher because I do not think there is an infinite upside to continuous improvement because of the law of diminishing returns but I may be mixing my curriculums. I think the physics majors on the board could do better job refuting the infinite possibility of continuos improvement.

 

3.) Nothing here moving along

 

4.) Yep remember that statistics 101 lesson well, "you can can basically get them to say whatever you need them to say".

 

5.) Absolutely evangelical, has to keep his bosses convinced and himself he his doing the right thing or else he probably does not feel he could do his job. I do not have a problem with him thinking he's right but let the debate rage on whether he is.

[tom webster]

Without picking at every word, in general terms and based on record, which over the course of a 12 year career should be consider sound statistical representation, I believe it can be shown that other then the year after the Cup Final in 1999, Ruff's teams have done better provided they entered the year with the relatively same roster as the year before.

 

You can pick apart the record, make antecdotal assumptions but in plain black and white terms, his teams have done better.

 

All that being said, I hate Darcy and Larry spending so much time finding statistical analysis that justifies their positions.

[SwampD]

Darcy's appearance on WGR on Friday was a treasure trove of intriguing comments. In bold are some good questions for board debate.

 

1. "We thrive because we keep the same coach." Have the Sabres thrived under Ruff? Darcy alleged that the Sabres have the fourth-best record since the lockout. Bulldog's obvious reply was that that includes two seasons out of the playoffs and one over-the-top Presidents' Trophy team throwing off the numbers.

 

2. Keeping Ruff allows the Sabres to be better off with a "process of continuous improvement." Have the Sabres continuously improved under Ruff, before or after the lockout, and is the expectation of continuous improvement under Ruff in years to come a reasonable one?

 

3. Darcy admitted he knows what the media is/are saying about him and the team, not because he reads/listens to it but because he has Mike Gilbert tell him. Does this seem like a good use of Darcy's time/energy? Is his secretary's name Woods?

 

4. Darcy says he knows that the perception of the Sabres is that they don't make many moves, at the deadline or otherwise. He had this stat handy: there were 52 transactions on deadline day, and he made two of them. He said this makes the Sabres "above average" in activity. He also claimed that NHL teams turn over their rosters completely every four to five years. The question here isn't whether that's true (it's not; 11 Sabres remain from 05-06), but why does Darcy think it's true? Does he really believe he aggressively manages change here and keeps things "fresh"?

 

5. Here's the big one. Does Darcy have an almost evangelical faith in what he's doing -- he's right and he doesn't care what people think, and one day the Cup will be his/ours -- or is he just BSing the fans?

1. Sounds like most of the posters here.

 

2. See #1

 

3. I would hope that the GM knows what the fans are saying. It's his job to keep us happy.

 

4. If there "is no future" as he says with the turnover, then why is there so much reluctance by him and fans to mortgage that future to win now?

 

5. P.A., you have said yourself that he does things out of fear so you know this isn't true.

[carpandean]

He also claimed that NHL teams turn over their rosters completely every four to five years. The question here isn't whether that's true (it's not; 11 Sabres remain from 05-06), but why does Darcy think it's true? Does he really believe he aggressively manages change here and keeps things "fresh"?

Actually, what he said is true ... it's just misleading. A classic term in business is turnover or simply "turn" as usually applied to inventory, and he applies it exactly as defined. As he said, if you have a 20 man roster and make four changes a year, then you roster "turns over" every five years. This does not, however, mean that every player changes within that five year period, as you think it might imply. It simply means that there are 20 player changes on a 20 man roster, on average, over a five year period. It's not incorrect, but can be utterly irrelevant. The Sabres will likely change their backup goaltender two or three times in that period, their five-six defensemen a couple of times, and a few of their role player forwards a few times. That's most of the changes right there. Unfortunately, that all can happen without a change in the "core" and it's still called a full turnover of the roster. Darcy knows how to pick his words; he rarely says anything that is straight up wrong.

[static70]

Actually, what he said is true ... it's just misleading. A classic term in business is turnover or simply "turn" as usually applied to inventory, and he applies it exactly as defined. As he said, if you have a 20 man roster and make four changes a year, then you roster "turns over" every five years. This does not, however, mean that every player changes within that five year period, as you think it might imply. It simply means that there are 20 player changes on a 20 man roster, on average, over a five year period. It's not incorrect, but can be utterly irrelevant. The Sabres will likely change their backup goaltender two or three times in that period, their five-six defensemen a couple of times, and a few of their role player forwards a few times. That's most of the changes right there. Unfortunately, that all can happen without a change in the "core" and it's still called a full turnover of the roster. Darcy knows how to pick his words; he rarely says anything that is straight up wrong.

Someone is a Business Major :beer:

And you are correct by the way. Darcy is correct in his statement. This however, does not make his decisions correct.

[carpandean]

Someone is a Business Major :beer:

You could say that ...

[Stoner]

Actually, what he said is true ... it's just misleading. A classic term in business is turnover or simply "turn" as usually applied to inventory, and he applies it exactly as defined. As he said, if you have a 20 man roster and make four changes a year, then you roster "turns over" every five years. This does not, however, mean that every player changes within that five year period, as you think it might imply. It simply means that there are 20 player changes on a 20 man roster, on average, over a five year period. It's not incorrect, but can be utterly irrelevant. The Sabres will likely change their backup goaltender two or three times in that period, their five-six defensemen a couple of times, and a few of their role player forwards a few times. That's most of the changes right there. Unfortunately, that all can happen without a change in the "core" and it's still called a full turnover of the roster. Darcy knows how to pick his words; he rarely says anything that is straight up wrong.

 

Extremely misleading. If this is Darcy's defense to the idea that he doesn't make enough changes, it's pretty weak, especially since half the roster is still here. And even more especially since he admitted such turnover is "not a strategy." (Schopp had asked whether the turnover "just happens" or is a "strategy.") So change manages him, he doesn't manage it. That says it all. He's not a general manager at all.

[Bmwolf21]

Re: #3 -- in one of my former jobs working in PR for a minor league baseball team and in my grad assistantship in the sports information department for Florida State, one of our daily duties was to scour the local, regional and select national newspapers for coverage of the teams and/or coaches. When we found coverage we had to copy the articles and distribute to upper management, as well as maintain an archive of the clips. So nothing DR said is really out of the ordinary, unless he is hiring people to do nothing but transcribe radio call-in shows and lurk on message boards.