... Posted February 9, 2012 Report Posted February 9, 2012 Apparently the research question is: What impact did James Patrick have on tonight's win? The proposed hypothesis, derived from this, is: Did James Patrick cause (or was primarily responsible for) the result tonight? The argument is that tonight they looked the way they did because Patrick was behind the bench instead of Ruff, so that's about the crux of it. I guess another way of phrasing would be: If Lindy Ruff was behind the bench tonight calling the shots, would the outcome have been less positive? Would this team be better with Patrick instead of Ruff? Regardless of exact phrasing, it can't be addressed properly with a 1 game sample of Patrick behind the bench calling the shots, it just can't. Not to mention, as every player has said afterwards...it was Ruff's gameplan, Ruff's lines, Ruff's matchups and Ruff's system. All Patrick did was execute it. Very good! :clapping: Except for the last part. I've been listening all along to the interviews and basically none of what you have said in the last two sentences is true. :oops: Since you asked, well, no, you didn't, but I'll say it anyway because some people here clearly take themselves WAY too seriously: all that interests me is that the team played an inspired game. Inspired, not goaded like the last Boston game (hence my conclusion that it was manipulated). The boys rolled off the bench differently: TOI per shift seemed different, match-ups were consistent, the lines stayed the same. And, above all, they seemed to be having fun playing hockey. Sorry, you can't quantify "fun" - but we are humans and sensitive to how faces "read", body language as well. Those types of signs apparently exist, but their meanings are up in the air. <_< And Lindy was NOT there on the bench to yell at them, shuffle lines, and call shifts. I know it's just plum crazy, but I think this game indicates enough of a correlation to warrant further experimentation.
qwksndmonster Posted February 9, 2012 Report Posted February 9, 2012 Sick. FNC playing "Don't Tread On Me" Good song. McQuaid is a b!tch That's exactly what my sister said while we were watching. If they keep playing like this through the deadline, we can all forget our dreams of dumping the dead-weight and making moves that will actually improve the team enough to make it a Cup contender. If they don't trade Derek Roy, I'm burning someone's house down. This was a game that needed to happen. The excitement I feel for my first ever Sabres game in Buffalo (Saturday) is growing. My Vanek jersey is no longer cursed, so I can actually wear it to the game. I hate Boston.
... Posted February 9, 2012 Report Posted February 9, 2012 I hate to cross-post, but this thread needs this video: Damn, can't..post. How?
TrueBlueGED Posted February 9, 2012 Report Posted February 9, 2012 Except for the last part. I've been listening all along to the interviews and basically none of what you have said in the last two sentences is true. Miller: "The system was good." --unless you think Patrick is so incredible as to install a new system in a day, it was Ruff's system. --He also referenced an early neutral-zone adjustment. +1 to Patrick (although we don't know that Ruff wouldn't have made the same adjustment). Pominville: "I think that was for everyone. We owed it to him and to ourselves." "Lindy had a lot of say with the coaches even though he wasn't behind the bench." --asked if it was different with James, "No. The voice was different but the message was the same. Gameplan was the same." Ruff mentioned during his press conference the coaches went over the plan and lines and matchups in the morning. He told Patrick it was his bench. Maybe I'm abrasive. Maybe I'm in my little ivory tower. But I'm not a liar.
stenbaro Posted February 9, 2012 Report Posted February 9, 2012 Good song. That's exactly what my sister said while we were watching. If they don't trade Derek Roy, I'm burning someone's house down. This was a game that needed to happen. The excitement I feel for my first ever Sabres game in Buffalo (Saturday) is growing. My Vanek jersey is no longer cursed, so I can actually wear it to the game. I hate Boston. I noticed Roy only a few times tonight, usually after he did nothing of importance and skated nonchalantly to the bench like he was Thor defeating the enemy
Iron Crotch Posted February 9, 2012 Report Posted February 9, 2012 Finally, a voice of reason. A hockey game isn't an "experiment," and if it were, there are far more variables than just having a different head coach. Team A could beat Team B by a score of 4-3 one day, and then lose to them 5-2 next time they play. It happens all season long, for every team. That's why they play 82 games. The fact that the Sabres won with Patrick behind the bench instead of Ruff means literally nothing to me, nor should it to you. Since everyone wants to talk science tonight, this is absolutely right. You could never do an experiment to test which guy (Lindy or Jeep) is a better coach. Too many potentially confounding variable. You'd have to give each guy the same exact team, against the same opponent, on the same night, at the same time, in the same location, etc. (maybe in parallel universes)... That's the beauty of sports and the beauty of message boards like this one. It is all opinion and it should be opinion. ...It'd be a boring board otherwise.
qwksndmonster Posted February 9, 2012 Report Posted February 9, 2012 I noticed Roy only a few times tonight, usually after he did nothing of importance and skated nonchalantly to the bench like he was Thor defeating the enemy He hit someone tonight. I saw it. It was shocking.
... Posted February 9, 2012 Report Posted February 9, 2012 Since everyone wants to talk science tonight, this is actually absolutely right. You could never do a natural experiment to test which guy (Lindy or Jeep) is a better coach. Too many potentially confounding variable. You'd have to give each guy the same exact team, against the same opponent, on the same night, at the same time, in the same location, etc. (maybe in parallel universes)... That's the beauty of sports and the beauty of message boards like this one. It is all opinion and it should be opinion. ...It'd be a boring board otherwise. Of course. Why does this need to be pointed out? Oh, yes...message board. Egos and such. But it is fun to play with words, no? FWIW, I think "superior" is the wrong word here, and really only applies to very special people who happen to be coaches (in any sport). I prefer to look at coaches as "the right coach" for a team.
stenbaro Posted February 9, 2012 Report Posted February 9, 2012 He hit someone tonight. I saw it. It was shocking. LOL...I must have been on a pee break....
LGR4GM Posted February 9, 2012 Report Posted February 9, 2012 Very good! :clapping: Except for the last part. I've been listening all along to the interviews and basically none of what you have said in the last two sentences is true. :oops: Since you asked, well, no, you didn't, but I'll say it anyway because some people here clearly take themselves WAY too seriously: all that interests me is that the team played an inspired game. Inspired, not goaded like the last Boston game (hence my conclusion that it was manipulated). The boys rolled off the bench differently: TOI per shift seemed different, match-ups were consistent, the lines stayed the same. And, above all, they seemed to be having fun playing hockey. Sorry, you can't quantify "fun" - but we are humans and sensitive to how faces "read", body language as well. Those types of signs apparently exist, but their meanings are up in the air. <_< And Lindy was NOT there on the bench to yell at them, shuffle lines, and call shifts. I know it's just plum crazy, but I think this game indicates enough of a correlation to warrant further experimentation. Correlation is not cause and effect. Ruff not being behind the bench correlates to the best game this team has played (by best I mean most complete) ie. without ruff the team, this particular time, played great. However there is currently no proof that because Ruff was absent it directly caused the team to play great. ie. Patrick's coaching lead to the teams win. I hate to say it but I knew this conversation would occur... thank god I am going on vacation!
qwksndmonster Posted February 9, 2012 Report Posted February 9, 2012 LOL...I must have been on a pee break.... It was kind of hard to see because they changed the camera angle to one of those ice-level shots and it happened in the corner of the screen.
TheChimp Posted February 9, 2012 Report Posted February 9, 2012 Well finally the bounces go our way and Leino shows up all on the same night! Big props to the three Sabres who took major beatings in the effort. We lost all three fights by a mile but WE were the team who took the energy from those fights and skated harder and shot better and scored after each one. Beauty way to beat the goon squad!!
rickshaw Posted February 9, 2012 Report Posted February 9, 2012 Now that is how it's done. Just when I was done with this team, they suck me back in. Leino- excellent tonight Pommers- same Miller-making the puck look like a preverbial beach ball 3 fights, all losses but who cares? They showed up. Kaleta was huge Lucic clearly hit Kaleta in the head with his stick while Kaleta was on all fours late in the game. Clear intent. Suspension if you ask me. Great team win. If they continue their excellent home play they will definitely make this interesting.
... Posted February 9, 2012 Report Posted February 9, 2012 Correlation is not cause and effect. Ruff not being behind the bench correlates to the best game this team has played (by best I mean most complete) ie. without ruff the team, this particular time, played great. However there is currently no proof that because Ruff was absent it directly caused the team to play great. ie. Patrick's coaching lead to the teams win. Of course. It will, however, be interesting to see how the team plays when Lindy is back behind the bench. I hope he takes his time recovering, seeing that James did so well, although, Lindy would be unwise to make that correlation I guess. Curious, if the team playing well isn't an indicator of James' influence behind the bench, how is Lindy supposed to evaluate James' performance? You know, for year-end reviews and stuff. It is confusing to me. I guess it would have been easier if the Sabres had just lost the game by playing listlessly; then everything would be "normal".
qwksndmonster Posted February 9, 2012 Report Posted February 9, 2012 Ville Leino was awesome tonight. Snowed Thomas and was fearless. Looked pretty comfortable playing with Pommer and Roy.
SwampD Posted February 9, 2012 Report Posted February 9, 2012 Some random thoughts on the game- -Great game by Leino. -Miller is sure in some kinda zone. -Kaleta, great game. -Ehrhoff is worth the money. We're a different team with him on the ice. -Tuukka Rask looks like a crazed lesbian. -Ennis looked great. -I just don't understand why Mike Milbury has a job.
LGR4GM Posted February 9, 2012 Report Posted February 9, 2012 Shouldn't we be talking about Ennis play at center? Not Patrick's coaching? (Which seemed the same as Ruff (Minus Alamo Mode))
LaLaLaFontaine Posted February 9, 2012 Report Posted February 9, 2012 Yeah this was the Sabres team i was missing for so a long time. 6 goals shot, 1 shotout and they pushed the bully back. Tonight we destroyed the Bruins. Is it a sign that we win so high without Ruff on the bench? What a rare and satisfying feeling for me to start a day in such a good mood.
drnkirishone Posted February 9, 2012 Report Posted February 9, 2012 The Sabres are now 1 and 1 in games when lindy can't be behind the bench. so clearly this means they are a .500 team without him right? :wallbash:
Kristian Posted February 9, 2012 Report Posted February 9, 2012 How's this?....First time Miller has played Boston since he got run. That's your variable. The only real variable I see right now is a team giving a rats ass, and other teams taking said team lightly due to the fact they went on holiday throughout december, which Buffalo teams who miss the playoffs have had a habit of doing in the past.
inkman Posted February 9, 2012 Report Posted February 9, 2012 Seriously, does anybody think that maybe, MAYBE, this effort has something to do with the fact they've been playing really well since the break, is Miller's first game back against Boston, and they're all tired of hearing about how they're afraid of Boston? I'm disappointed you are the only poster to point this out. I thought it was fairly obvious why they were fired up. They are playing the team that pantsed them and exposed their little weenies...at home...fully healthy for the first time since Miller was run. To hear all these scenarios about the coaching is baffling.
inkman Posted February 9, 2012 Report Posted February 9, 2012 If the Sabres want to be contenders, they need to address the size and toughness. It was nice to see Kaleta and McCormick do what they did but the Sabres will need to add a few things. A thug who scores and fights; a la Lucic or Hartnell. They also need a heavyweight or two. Finley isn't scary enough, there aren't a lot of scary dudes left but they should get one. Also, grab a big mean defensman. The Bruins have one of these pricks on the ice at all times, I want the Sabres to as well. Get a 6'4" 230lbs+ guy that will your face off. These guys are a dime a dozen, go grab a couple at the deadline in case of injuries.
CallawaySabres Posted February 9, 2012 Report Posted February 9, 2012 Just back - 1) Kaleta 2) Pommenville 3 ) Miller / Leino It's not over
... Posted February 9, 2012 Report Posted February 9, 2012 I'm disappointed you are the only poster to point this out. I thought it was fairly obvious why they were fired up. They are playing the team that pantsed them and exposed their little weenies...at home...fully healthy for the first time since Miller was run. To hear all these scenarios about the coaching is baffling. The issue I have with that theory is that the last Boston game was supposed to have been the make-up for the "Lucid Incident". If what the players say in interviews is to be considered "proof" or "evidence", then injuries were no barrier to making the Bruins "pay" in the last game. To them, it was allegedly "over". So, for me, I was expecting the Sabres to consider this another game against a strong opponent, and not to be especially fired up. In truth, I was expecting them to recoil after being exposed to the Bruins' physical game. Frankly, I think everyone's surprise is a reflection how disappointing the season has been overall. There were lots of good things happening in that game, and by itself it was highly enjoyable. In the context of not only the entire season so far, but Pegula's first off-season, I would deem it bittersweet. Perhaps that will change to "milestone" if they eek into the playoffs. Anyway, the reasons for their play tonight are as elusive as the reasons why they stunk up over a third of the season. Or not. For all we know here, it could very well be as simple as injuries. Who is to say with any more credibility than anyone else? The James Patrick Effect is compelling to me. No one was forced to follow along with that meme. Instead of discussing it respectfully like any other theory, the opponents here chose to try and suppress it outright. The Healthy Team with Miller Equation is no more likely a factor as the former.
CallawaySabres Posted February 9, 2012 Report Posted February 9, 2012 I think it would be interesting if Ruff is not behind the bench tonight. Many people would get their answer to "are they not responding to Ruff anymore." If they come out guns a blazin and rip off a 3 goal margin of victory with plenty of big hits, look out Shitestorm. Double Down....................
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.