Prediction time: opening night lineup

[Peppy22]

The "I think its likely"

 

Foligno - Hodgson - Vanek

Leino - Grigorenko - Ott

Girgensons - Ennis - Stafford

Scott - Larsson - Kaleta

Tropp

 

Ehrhoff - Myers

Tallinder - Pysyk

Ristolainen - Weber

McBain

 

Miller

Enroth

 

The "I think it's possible"

 

Foligno - Hodgson - Vanek

Girgensons - Grigorenko - Ott

Leino - Ennis - Stafford

Tropp - Larsson - Armia

- Scott

 

Ehrhoff - Myers

McBain - Pysyk

Ristolainen - Weber

Sulzer

 

Miller

Enroth

 

The "I think we all want"

 

Foligno - Hodgson - Vanek

Girgensons - Grigorenko - Ott

Leino - Ennis - Armia

Tropp - Larsson - Kaleta

Flynn

 

Ehrhoff - Myers

Tallinder - Pysyk

Ristolainen - Zadorov

Weber

 

Miller

Enroth

[rakish]

There are two things that interest me in regards to the lineup that Rolston puts together.

 

First, who plays with Ott. Ott had a great year on the defensive end of the rink, but no one scored while on his line. They tried everybody. Where Ott shined most was with Hecht and Gerbe, as neither player needs to score to be valuable to the team. Whenever I see someone draw up a lineup, Ott ends up with Grigo, who is the last player in the NHL I would play with Ott, because Grigo needs to score to be valuable. I doubt Rolston puts Ott with Grigo, I imagine opening pre-season lineups come from the GM, and Rolston needs to wait for a two game losing streak to reshuffle lines.

 

Second, for the past two years Ennis has been the teams best center, and worst wing. Who do you believe, me, or your lyin eyes?

 

You may say, if I separate Ott and Grigo, and put Ennis at center, I can't make the parts fit right. And there is the rub.

[LGR4GM]

Okay after 2 preseasons I feel like this is the likely outcome to start the year:

 

Foligno - Hodgson - Vanek

Leino - Grigorenko - Tropp

Ott - Larsson - Stafford (yea I am putting him here)

Scott/Gillies - McCormick - Kaleta/Flynn

 

Ehrhoff - Myers

Weber - Ristolainen

Tallinder - Pysyk

McNabb - McBain

 

Miller - Enroth - Hackett

 

We obviously won't carry 3 goalies but I did that for the depth chart aspect

[rakish]

trading Ennis Liger?

[LGR4GM]

trading Ennis Liger?

No I just realized I forgot him. I really like Ennis actually lol :blush:

 

But I can't figure out where to put him without trading someone... we have to many LW

 

Hold on I am recalibrating...

 

Okay after 2 preseasons I feel like this is the likely outcome to start the year:

 

Foligno - Hodgson - Vanek

Leino - Grigorenko - Tropp

Ott - Larsson - Stafford (yea I am putting him here)

Scott/Gillies - McCormick - Kaleta/Flynn

 

Ehrhoff - Myers

Weber - Ristolainen

Tallinder - Pysyk

McNabb - McBain

 

Miller - Enroth - Hackett

 

We obviously won't carry 3 goalies but I did that for the depth chart aspect

 

Foligno - Hodgson - Vanek

Leino Ennis - Grigorenko - Tropp Leino

Ott Tropp- Larsson Ott - Stafford (yea I am putting him here)

Scott/Gillies - McCormick - Kaleta/Flynn

 

Ehrhoff - Myers

Weber - Ristolainen

Tallinder - Pysyk

McNabb - McBain

 

Miller - Enroth - Hackett

 

We obviously won't carry 3 goalies but I did that for the depth chart aspect

[dudacek]

I'm in the GIrgs should play on the first line in the AHL for a while to polish his offense camp.

But he is starting to force his way into consideration for me.

Except Larsson is showing he belongs too, and I can't see us keeping both, minus a trade.

 

Ott Larsson Leino could be that legitimate hard-to-play-against third line we lacked last year.

 

And the only thing better for this team than Marcus Foligno emerging as a top-six power forward, would be a Tyler Myers rebirth.

[chileanseabass]

Girgs is in the same situation as Pominville and Roy a few years back. He has a good camp, shows he has what it takes to stick, but gets sent back down to start the season. Invariably someone will get injured within the first month, and he'll be back.... and he probably won't go back down.

[darksabre]

Girgs is in the same situation as Pominville and Roy a few years back. He has a good camp, shows he has what it takes to stick, but gets sent back down to start the season. Invariably someone will get injured within the first month, and he'll be back.... and he probably won't go back down.

 

I really hope we just skip the semantic step and keep him up.

[nfreeman]

Well, I just realized that I omitted Ristolainen in the choices for question #1 -- clearly I'm not in regular-season condition.

 

He's there now. Feel free to amend your votes, but the answer on him is going to be a bit inaccurate.

 

(I didn't include him or Ruhwedel in #2 because I don't view either of them as dark horses.)

[TrueBlueGED]

There are two things that interest me in regards to the lineup that Rolston puts together.

 

First, who plays with Ott. Ott had a great year on the defensive end of the rink, but no one scored while on his line. They tried everybody. Where Ott shined most was with Hecht and Gerbe, as neither player needs to score to be valuable to the team. Whenever I see someone draw up a lineup, Ott ends up with Grigo, who is the last player in the NHL I would play with Ott, because Grigo needs to score to be valuable. I doubt Rolston puts Ott with Grigo, I imagine opening pre-season lineups come from the GM, and Rolston needs to wait for a two game losing streak to reshuffle lines.

 

Second, for the past two years Ennis has been the teams best center, and worst wing. Who do you believe, me, or your lyin eyes?

 

You may say, if I separate Ott and Grigo, and put Ennis at center, I can't make the parts fit right. And there is the rub.

 

Care to explain how Ennis has been our best center for two years when he has yet to play a season at the position? He was center for like 20 games two years ago and at the end of last year he was back at wing.

[rakish]

Care to explain how Ennis has been our best center for two years when he has yet to play a season at the position? He was center for like 20 games two years ago and at the end of last year he was back at wing.

 

 

From the 4 charts attached, (EDIT: fixed)

 

Ennis 2012, played wing game 1-49, even

played center game 50-82 +11

 

Hodgson 2012 played game 62-82, minus 7, arguably caused the team to not make playoffs being a minus 5 the last 5 games

 

Ennis 2013, played center game 1-37 (that is admittedly a guess), minus 3. As wing, minus 11. Note how the plusminus (the green line) goes straight down the last 10 games.

 

Hodgson 2013, minus 4

 

So totals are Ennis as center: +8, as wing -11

Hodgson: -11

 

And that's not even getting into the details. Hodgson on the PP sucked last year, Ennis was merely OK. Ennis played many more minutes with Stafford, who does terrible things to one's stat line. It is true Hodgson saw slightly more difficult opposition, but I think the value of Vanek as compared to Stafford more than mitigates that.

 

I think it's a valid argument that the problem with Hodgson at center was Ennis playing with him (they were minus 8 together). Hodgson and Stafford together were almost equally as bad.

[Two or less]

The "I think its likely"

 

Foligno - Hodgson - Vanek

Leino - Grigorenko - Ott

Girgensons - Ennis - Stafford

Scott Tropp - Larsson - Kaleta

Tropp Scott

 

Ehrhoff - Myers

Tallinder - Pysyk

Ristolainen - Weber

McBain

 

Miller

Enroth

 

I was kinda bored at work today and was writing it out with pen and paper today so when i thought i had figured it out, i could come and post it. But looks like you did all the work for me. lol thanks alot...

[nfreeman]

From the 4 charts attached, (EDIT: fixed)

 

Ennis 2012, played wing game 1-49, even

played center game 50-82 +11

 

Hodgson 2012 played game 62-82, minus 7, arguably caused the team to not make playoffs being a minus 5 the last 5 games

 

Ennis 2013, played center game 1-37 (that is admittedly a guess), minus 3. As wing, minus 11. Note how the plusminus (the green line) goes straight down the last 10 games.

 

Hodgson 2013, minus 4

 

So totals are Ennis as center: +8, as wing -11

Hodgson: -11

 

And that's not even getting into the details. Hodgson on the PP sucked last year, Ennis was merely OK. Ennis played many more minutes with Stafford, who does terrible things to one's stat line. It is true Hodgson saw slightly more difficult opposition, but I think the value of Vanek as compared to Stafford more than mitigates that.

 

I think it's a valid argument that the problem with Hodgson at center was Ennis playing with him (they were minus 8 together). Hodgson and Stafford together were almost equally as bad.

 

No. The entire team shriveled up and hid under the bed at crunch time, just as they've done at every single GD important moment since Black Sunday.

[qwksndmonster]

No. The entire team shriveled up and hid under the bed at crunch time, just as they've done at every single GD important moment since Black Sunday.

I would argue that this team stepped up in crunch time and won way more games in the second half of the season than they should've considering their talent level. Also, they couldn't just ride miller the whole way.

[TrueBlueGED]

From the 4 charts attached, (EDIT: fixed)

 

Ennis 2012, played wing game 1-49, even

played center game 50-82 +11

 

Hodgson 2012 played game 62-82, minus 7, arguably caused the team to not make playoffs being a minus 5 the last 5 games

 

Ennis 2013, played center game 1-37 (that is admittedly a guess), minus 3. As wing, minus 11. Note how the plusminus (the green line) goes straight down the last 10 games.

 

Hodgson 2013, minus 4

 

So totals are Ennis as center: +8, as wing -11

Hodgson: -11

 

And that's not even getting into the details. Hodgson on the PP sucked last year, Ennis was merely OK. Ennis played many more minutes with Stafford, who does terrible things to one's stat line. It is true Hodgson saw slightly more difficult opposition, but I think the value of Vanek as compared to Stafford more than mitigates that.

 

I think it's a valid argument that the problem with Hodgson at center was Ennis playing with him (they were minus 8 together). Hodgson and Stafford together were almost equally as bad.

 

While I genuinely appreciate the attempt to empirically back up your claim, you really lose me using +/- as the measure of relative "goodness".

[nfreeman]

I would argue that this team stepped up in crunch time and won way more games in the second half of the season than they should've considering their talent level. Also, they couldn't just ride miller the whole way.

 

In 2011-2012? NFW. They were in the #8 slot with 5 games to go and then puked all over themselves.

 

And one of the big reasons they won a bunch of games in the 2nd half was that they were so low in the standings after their atrocious 1st half that they usually got their opponents' B games in the 2nd half.

[TrueBlueGED]

In 2011-2012? NFW. They were in the #8 slot with 5 games to go and then puked all over themselves.

 

And one of the big reasons they won a bunch of games in the 2nd half was that they were so low in the standings after their atrocious 1st half that they usually got their opponents' B games in the 2nd half.

 

So they didn't really puke all over themselves, they just weren't good but managed to take advantage of some advantageous situations. Looking back on things, that's what I think happened.

[nfreeman]

So they didn't really puke all over themselves, they just weren't good but managed to take advantage of some advantageous situations. Looking back on things, that's what I think happened.

 

No -- when you're sitting in #8 with 5 games to go and then you lose 4 of your last 5, including a critical regulation loss to the Leafs, who finished well below the Sabres that year, you have puked all over yourself.

[rakish]

While I genuinely appreciate the attempt to empirically back up your claim, you really lose me using +/- as the measure of relative "goodness".

 

A lot of people make the Corsi mistake. It's a problem of not understanding the difference between a signify value and a determine value, for the lack of better adjectives. Let me start with a bit of history that will serve as an analogy

 

If you've taken some tax law, you've come across the story where the king decided to tax his people by counting windows, because big houses were built by rich people, and the king could get more money out of the rich people. The taxman had it easy, walked up to the house, counted the windows, collected the tax.

 

People started building enormous houses without windows. What the king learned was that windows signified wealth, they didn't determine wealth, and if you allow those who are being valuated to control those signifiers, you will get bad valuation.

 

300 years later Steve Ott comes up ice, he knocks the puck into the corner making the goaltender handle it around the net, sometimes it results in a goal, as in last night. But Ott doesn't get a shot, so the Corsi's really don't like Ott.

 

Two minutes after that, Drew Stafford will cross the red line and shoot at the goaltender. The goaltender will pass to a defenseman, and the opponent will start coming back. A terrible play, the goaltender coach will yell out "Way to go Drew," and the GM will wonder despite winning the last 20 trades, why his team loses.

 

Drew Stafford is just playing the role of the rich man 300 years ago who didn't want to pay tax. He is told that shots are important. So he takes shots. The Sabres love him, because he takes shots, but he's not effective, because it's not important.

 

A usable data framework cannot allow Drew Stafford to control an action that signifies value, because the game is not about shots. You must look at data that determines value, honestly, it really clouds your judgment.

[inkman]

A lot of people make the Corsi mistake. It's a problem of not understanding the difference between a signify value and a determine value, for the lack of better adjectives. Let me start with a bit of history that will serve as an analogy

 

If you've taken some tax law, you've come across the story where the king decided to tax his people by counting windows, because big houses were built by rich people, and the king could get more money out of the rich people. The taxman had it easy, walked up to the house, counted the windows, collected the tax.

 

People started building enormous houses without windows. What the king learned was that windows signified wealth, they didn't determine wealth, and if you allow those who are being valuated to control those signifiers, you will get bad valuation.

 

300 years later Steve Ott comes up ice, he knocks the puck into the corner making the goaltender handle it around the net, sometimes it results in a goal, as in last night. But Ott doesn't get a shot, so the Corsi's really don't like Ott.

 

Two minutes after that, Drew Stafford will cross the red line and shoot at the goaltender. The goaltender will pass to a defenseman, and the opponent will start coming back. A terrible play, the goaltender coach will yell out "Way to go Drew," and the GM will wonder despite winning the last 20 trades, why his team loses.

 

Drew Stafford is just playing the role of the rich man 300 years ago who didn't want to pay tax. He is told that shots are important. So he takes shots. The Sabres love him, because he takes shots, but he's not effective, because it's not important.

 

A usable data framework cannot allow Drew Stafford to control an action that signifies value, because the game is not about shots. You must look at data that determines value, honestly, it really clouds your judgment.

Boom

[spndnchz]

 

Boom

 

Goes my head. But yeah.

[bunomatic]

A lot of people make the Corsi mistake. It's a problem of not understanding the difference between a signify value and a determine value, for the lack of better adjectives. Let me start with a bit of history that will serve as an analogy

 

If you've taken some tax law, you've come across the story where the king decided to tax his people by counting windows, because big houses were built by rich people, and the king could get more money out of the rich people. The taxman had it easy, walked up to the house, counted the windows, collected the tax.

 

People started building enormous houses without windows. What the king learned was that windows signified wealth, they didn't determine wealth, and if you allow those who are being valuated to control those signifiers, you will get bad valuation.

 

300 years later Steve Ott comes up ice, he knocks the puck into the corner making the goaltender handle it around the net, sometimes it results in a goal, as in last night. But Ott doesn't get a shot, so the Corsi's really don't like Ott.

 

Two minutes after that, Drew Stafford will cross the red line and shoot at the goaltender. The goaltender will pass to a defenseman, and the opponent will start coming back. A terrible play, the goaltender coach will yell out "Way to go Drew," and the GM will wonder despite winning the last 20 trades, why his team loses.

 

Drew Stafford is just playing the role of the rich man 300 years ago who didn't want to pay tax. He is told that shots are important. So he takes shots. The Sabres love him, because he takes shots, but he's not effective, because it's not important.

 

A usable data framework cannot allow Drew Stafford to control an action that signifies value, because the game is not about shots. You must look at data that determines value, honestly, it really clouds your judgment.

 

Good post.

[qwksndmonster]

In 2011-2012? NFW. They were in the #8 slot with 5 games to go and then puked all over themselves.

 

And one of the big reasons they won a bunch of games in the 2nd half was that they were so low in the standings after their atrocious 1st half that they usually got their opponents' B games in the 2nd half.

My mistake. Somehow I was thinking 2013 season.

[Huckleberry]

Looking at the pipeline of talent we got, some will get traded or become a buy out if they don't start performing.

Leino and stafford being the obvious choices. But Myers must be feeling the heat by now.

 

But lets say Ristolainen (NHL) and zadarov (AHL) perform well, i can see Regier thinking about putting Myers up on the trade block.

A team like edmonton would take Myers for sure.

Myers + stafford for Eberle and a 1st round pick :D

 

Shoot high and ask for Yakupov instead of eberle ?

[Peppy22]

I was kinda bored at work today and was writing it out with pen and paper today so when i thought i had figured it out, i could come and post it. But looks like you did all the work for me. lol thanks alot...

 

glad I could help out ;)