GDT:Islanders at Sabres 12-27-2014 7PM

[sicknfla]

 

 

It means that the Sabres have moments in games when they are "on". Enough of these happen that they win more games then they should if you look at the overall stats for a game. This must drive the stat guys nuts.

 

It's called motivation and effort. A direct result of Nolan's influence and why he was brought in to coach. It's part of the reason why I am convinced that the "tank" ended last season.

 

Although Pegula didn't realize it at the time the tank ended when he fired DR and hired PLF.

[Eleven]

Although Pegula didn't realize it at the time the tank ended when he fired DR and hired PLF.

 

Nah, it continued on 'til the end of last season.

[Andrew Amerk]

 

 

When you say it that way, the cure sounds worse than the disease.

 

I have heard The Cure before. Is The Disease a better band?

[Brawndo]

Great. Another one. Just when I was starting to understand Corsi.

 

I feel like I need to take a class in this stuff.

 

Actually I was considering asking TrueBlue if he was interested in starting a thread on analytics.

 

We are 14th in PDO this year.

 

Does this mean we get an average amount of luck?

 

 

14th in PDO, OT Wins and SO Wins against mostly backup goaltenders, hide the fact they are one of the league's worse teams.

 

But getting two points against a backup goalie or the Vezina Winner still counts the same in the standings and right now that is good for 25th.

 

The Sabres will be a very competitive team in the near future despite how they finish this season.

 

That being said McDavid or Eichel would make them that much better.

 

We will have to see what happens

[inkman]

It's called motivation and effort. A direct result of Nolan's influence and why he was brought in to coach.

What does this even mean? The Sabres are out played every game, but because they try harder for tiny stretches they win?

 

[Randall Flagg]

Actually I was considering asking TrueBlue if he was interested in starting a thread on analytics.

 

 

 

 

14th in PDO, OT Wins and SO Wins against mostly backup goaltenders, hide the fact they are one of the league's worse teams.

 

But getting two points against a backup goalie or the Vezina Winner still counts the same in the standings and right now that is good for 25th.

 

The Sabres will be a very competitive team in the near future despite how they finish this season.

 

That being said McDavid or Eichel would make them that much better.

 

We will have to see what happens

But a world where the bad teams don't get a lot of backup goaltenders doesn't exist. So there's no point even mentioning it like it was something that could have not happened.

[sicknfla]

 

 

Nah, it continued on 'til the end of last season.

 

They had no choice but to trade Miller, Ott, and Moulson. That was going to happen tank or no tank. My point is more that DR is 100% in on the tank. When he was fired and new blood was brought in trying to sell Murray and Nolan on the idea wasn't so easy.

 

Murray toes the company line and tries to say the right things but these guys have pride and a competitive nature. Loosing on purpose is easier said than done. Murray told us this past summer that the tank was over. Personally i am fine with it but we have a LONG ways to go before Murray can hang his hat on anything.

[Andrew Amerk]

 

What does this even mean? The Sabres are out played every game, but because they try harder for tiny stretches they win?

 

Nikita pleases the hockey gods.

[Sabres Fan in NS]

What does this even mean? The Sabres are out played every game, but because they try harder for tiny stretches they win?

 

Patience grass hopper.

 

Baby steps. These are just kids, learning on the fly.

[Kelly the Dog]

You're on the wrong board dude. If you're talking about Girgs and saying he's a 4th line guy you are way, way off.

I was obviously talking about Deslauriers, who made a terrific long breakout pass to send Girgs on the partial breakaway.

[dudacek]

What does this even mean? The Sabres are out played every game, but because they keep trying harder they win?

 

I think that is Nolan's coaching strategy in nutshell.

Edited December 28, 2014 by dudacek

[Robviously]

What's Nick deslauriers ceiling?

Great question. I'd say good third liner who can kill penalties. A nice player to have.

[inkman]

I think that is Nolan's coaching strategy in nutshell.

Ah the rest of the coaches are oblivious to effort.

[Andrew Amerk]

 

Ah the rest of the coaches are oblivious to effort.

 

Stuck all on systems and whatnot.

[Brawndo]

But a world where the bad teams don't get a lot of backup goaltenders doesn't exist. So there's no point even mentioning it like it was something that could have not happened.

 

No one ever said such a world exists, but its worth mentioning because as a result of facing backups they appear to be a better team then the are. They are dead last in Corsi, 29th in Regulation Wins with 8, they are 29th in Goals Against and tied for 30th in Goals Scored and yet they are in 25th in total points as a result of the twelve they have picked up in OT/SO Wins and being 14th in PDO.

 

They are McEichel Bad but no one in the Sabres Organization has any control which goalie they play on a nightly basis, so whatever happens happens

[TrueBlueGED]

We always bring up straw men, and I think that this is the case here. Everyone knows how bad this team is, and though we had fun with it when we were within a couple points of a playoff spot, of course they aren't good enough to be close at the end. But why not have fun, and laugh about how close they are when they were? It was amazing that they were there for that short time. I dunno. This team is going to win between 20-30 games this year, and the stats are going to look bad in most of them, because we are an awful team. Everyone who watches the game sees our -35 Corsi every night. It goes with the backup goalie thing. People complain and wonder why teams keep doing this, but you can't be in a competition for last and not see a huuuuuuge amount of backup goalies. We're gonna win some games, as a product of being an NHL team and having a few NHL players. I dunno. It's just weird. we're 1-3-1 in our last five, so I don't think people should worry.

 

I don't think it's a strawman at all because I think there is absolutely a non-trivial number around here who think the record in the past 15 is what this team really is, rather than the first 15 games. I fundamentally disagree with this, hence my comment. As NS has said a few times in this thread, he thinks they have turned a corner...I just don't see any corner turning when I watch them play. I see the same types of opportunities being generated, they're just going in right now. We're giving up fewer disastrous opportunities, but that's largely a function of Meszaros'/Benoit's roles being reduced more so than any team-level improvement in play that I can see.

 

If the Sabres keep winning, then someone is going to need to come up with a stat or two that accounts for "luck", because all of the stat guys keep saying this team is sh&tty, yet their record indicates they're better than sh&tty.

 

If they wind up with a wild card slot, you might want to keep the stat guys away from windows in tall buildings.

 

Really? What word would you use to describe the 25th place team in the league? ;)

 

I was just pointing out that although I am not a stats guy, my eyes told me that that was an awful game last night. There were long,… really long, stretches in that game that were pretty unbearable to watch. Neutral zone snoozefests with no scoring chances by either team. Add to that that we could not hold on to the puck, even with the PP, and it was pretty bad.

 

Don't get me wrong, the three plays that we scored on were awesome. That Kaleta, Stafford, Stewart goal was absolutely beautiful, and I was just as excited by the goals and the win as anyone (my buddy and I were jumping around like schoolgirls). The other 98% of the game was pretty dreadful, though, and anyone who says they weren't surprised to come away with a win is lying.

 

VIVA LA UNSUSTAINABLES!!!!

 

I initially quoted you because you're not a stats guy, yet you're seeing the same thing I did. They looked like the exact same team that opened the year on pace for like 30 points (which we all knew wasn't going to happen), just with a better result. I don't see some huge improvement in effort, I see improvement in player usage and line combinations: Ennis back to wing, Girgensons getting offensive minutes, significant ice time reductions for Meszaros/Benoit. I really don't consider this progress, unless we're talking about Nolan's coaching.

 

PDO is arbitrary parameters meant to explain "luck", as that explanation has us believe. They may as well add in caloric intake on Tuesdays and the coach's shoe size because those parameters are just as meaningful in this measure.

 

PDO is not arbitrary, as it's based on a repeatable relationship which makes logical sense. I really didn't mean for my comment to start a stats war, and yet here we are. To put PDO in real hockey terms, we can agree that teams and goaltenders go on hot streaks where seemingly every scoring chance goes in and every scoring chance against is stopped with a miraculous save, right? Cold spells happen in much the same way. Bad goaltending is sustainable, but even great goaltenders go through rough patches (for example, Lundqivst had something like an .890 SV% for 3 months last year...I think we can agree he's not an .890 goaltender). We probably shouldn't have expected Lundqvist to finish the season so low, and what do you know, he finished the year at .920, exactly his career average.

 

In more general terms, even if we can't completely measure it, I think we can all probably agree that each team has a "true talent" level in terms of how often their goaltenders stop the puck and how often the forwards score. Elite teams can have a "high" PDO and terrible teams can have a "low" PDO, and we shouldn't really bat an eye (unless the deviation is massive, but I digress). But if a team like the Sabres, who again I think we can agree is less talented across the board (except maybe in goal) than the Blackhawks, are putting up similar percentages...we shouldn't just take that as face value. It's a case where the results are not representative of the true talent on the team. PDO tells us that those percentages are going to come back down to earth and end up closer to the Sabres true talent level than the Blackhawks true talent level. The only real question is how long it takes for that to happen (which is why many hate this stat and think it's a bunch of hooey, because it can't tell you when, and the "when" can actually be the next season).

 

I just think that, in general, there is a huge resistance to the idea that luck plays a significant role in sports outcomes. Fans want to believe that wins are because of something tangible and real, not simply random chance. If you win, it's because you tried harder than the other team or you have more talent....and if you lose, you have to try harder or get better players. To me, this is the fundamental disagreement between those who place significant value in stats while saying things like "unsustainable and overachieving" and those who say things like "they found a way to win and that's all that matters."

 

If possession stats are among the best measures of how good a team is, and ours are last by a lot, and we aren't really close to last and have a few teams behind us, but our 'luck stat' is dead in the middle of the league, completely average, then what is going on, and what is missing from the stats that aren't telling the whole story?

 

Because no single stat tells the whole story, nor has anyone ever pretended they do. Possession stats are our best predictive metric, but that doesn't mean there's a strict 1:1 relationship between possession ranking and the standings; and if you're basing your entire prediction solely on Fenwick Close, you're doing it wrong...just like if you're basing it solely on whether they won or not. And there are always an outlier or two each year (Toronto and Colorado in recent years). I would also argue that "we're 30th in possession but 25th in the standings" isn't exactly disproving anything, nor is saying 3 teams don't conform when the other 27 teams do. Just because it's not the law of gravity doesn't mean it's some spurious correlation--is there anyone out there who, in a vacuum, would rather be out-shot 35-20 every game than outshoot the opponent 35-20?

 

Means nothing to me, sometimes you take 35 shots and get no quality scoring chances.

 

This gets to my luck point--it does matter. And even if bounces didn't matter, if you're constantly facing a 20 shot deficit, do you really think none of those are going to be high quality chances over the course of a season?

 

Actually I was considering asking TrueBlue if he was interested in starting a thread on analytics.

 

I had thought about it, but it would be a significant undertaking and I'm not sure how much genuine learning interest there would be versus the stereotypical "stats are good!" "stats are bad!" arguments which seem to be the norm.

Edited December 28, 2014 by TrueBluePhD

[dudacek]

Ah the rest of the coaches are oblivious to effort.

 

Oh, they've heard of it. It's just that they get bogged down with things liked "systems" and "matchups."

Teddy don't want to distract his young men with things like that.

[beerme1]

 

I was obviously talking about Deslauriers, who made a terrific long breakout pass to send Girgs on the partial breakaway.

 

Got it. Just seeing Girgs name made my brain think that.

[Sabres Fan in NS]

[...]

 

Really? What word would you use to describe the 25th place team in the league? ;)

 

10 points better than sh&tty. Which is not McEichel sh&tty. And I know you will say you, personally, haven't said the end-game of the tank is McEichel, you are but a sample point amongst the tankers who ARE looking at McEichel.

 

Not that it matters to me, really, I can live either way, but I feel bad for the people get all upset when the Sabres win and play "well". It's sad.

 

 

PDO is not arbitrary, as it's based on a repeatable relationship which makes logical sense. I really didn't mean for my comment to start a stats war, and yet here we are. To put PDO in real hockey terms, we can agree that teams and goaltenders go on hot streaks where seemingly every scoring chance goes in and every scoring chance against is stopped with a miraculous save, right? Cold spells happen in much the same way. Bad goaltending is sustainable, but even great goaltenders go through rough patches (for example, Lundqivst had something like an .890 SV% for 3 months last year...I think we can agree he's not an .890 goaltender). We probably shouldn't have expected Lundqvist to finish the season so low, and what do you know, he finished the year at .920, exactly his career average.

 

In more general terms, even if we can't completely measure it, I think we can all probably agree that each team has a "true talent" level in terms of how often their goaltenders stop the puck and how often the forwards score. Elite teams can have a "high" PDO and terrible teams can have a "low" PDO, and we shouldn't really bat an eye (unless the deviation is massive, but I digress). But if a team like the Sabres, who again I think we can agree is less talented across the board (except maybe in goal) than the Blackhawks, are putting up similar percentages...we shouldn't just take that as face value. It's a case where the results are not representative of the true talent on the team. PDO tells us that those percentages are going to come back down to earth and end up closer to the Sabres true talent level than the Blackhawks true talent level. The only real question is how long it takes for that to happen (which is why many hate this stat and think it's a bunch of hooey, because it can't tell you when, and the "when" can actually be the next season).

 

 

The parameters may be repeatable and but that doesn't mean the parameters or the number they produce have any real value. You can't seriously believe that "luck" can be quantified? Someone chose those numbers as a near-representative of what they think "luck" is. What good is the PDO when, for example, it is low, but the team is on a winning streak? You say time is the variable for PDO, but what good is it when the PDO changes over time?

 

To me, it's like the passenger telling the driver "you're speeding, you will get a ticket" and when the driver gets to their destination they ask the passenger "where's my speeding ticket?". "Well, if you hadn't lowered your speed/if the speed limit didn't increase on our route, you would have surely received a ticket."

 

 

 

[Stoner]

Rick sounded really good on the tying goal.

[SABRES 0311]

I don't think it's a strawman at all because I think there is absolutely a non-trivial number around here who think the record in the past 15 is what this team really is, rather than the first 15 games. I fundamentally disagree with this, hence my comment. As NS has said a few times in this thread, he thinks they have turned a corner...I just don't see any corner turning when I watch them play. I see the same types of opportunities being generated, they're just going in right now. We're giving up fewer disastrous opportunities, but that's largely a function of Meszaros'/Benoit's roles being reduced more so than any team-level improvement in play that I can see.

 

 

 

Really? What word would you use to describe the 25th place team in the league? ;)

 

 

 

I initially quoted you because you're not a stats guy, yet you're seeing the same thing I did. They looked like the exact same team that opened the year on pace for like 30 points (which we all knew wasn't going to happen), just with a better result. I don't see some huge improvement in effort, I see improvement in player usage and line combinations: Ennis back to wing, Girgensons getting offensive minutes, significant ice time reductions for Meszaros/Benoit. I really don't consider this progress, unless we're talking about Nolan's coaching.

 

 

 

PDO is not arbitrary, as it's based on a repeatable relationship which makes logical sense. I really didn't mean for my comment to start a stats war, and yet here we are. To put PDO in real hockey terms, we can agree that teams and goaltenders go on hot streaks where seemingly every scoring chance goes in and every scoring chance against is stopped with a miraculous save, right? Cold spells happen in much the same way. Bad goaltending is sustainable, but even great goaltenders go through rough patches (for example, Lundqivst had something like an .890 SV% for 3 months last year...I think we can agree he's not an .890 goaltender). We probably shouldn't have expected Lundqvist to finish the season so low, and what do you know, he finished the year at .920, exactly his career average.

 

In more general terms, even if we can't completely measure it, I think we can all probably agree that each team has a "true talent" level in terms of how often their goaltenders stop the puck and how often the forwards score. Elite teams can have a "high" PDO and terrible teams can have a "low" PDO, and we shouldn't really bat an eye (unless the deviation is massive, but I digress). But if a team like the Sabres, who again I think we can agree is less talented across the board (except maybe in goal) than the Blackhawks, are putting up similar percentages...we shouldn't just take that as face value. It's a case where the results are not representative of the true talent on the team. PDO tells us that those percentages are going to come back down to earth and end up closer to the Sabres true talent level than the Blackhawks true talent level. The only real question is how long it takes for that to happen (which is why many hate this stat and think it's a bunch of hooey, because it can't tell you when, and the "when" can actually be the next season).

 

I just think that, in general, there is a huge resistance to the idea that luck plays a significant role in sports outcomes. Fans want to believe that wins are because of something tangible and real, not simply random chance. If you win, it's because you tried harder than the other team or you have more talent....and if you lose, you have to try harder or get better players. To me, this is the fundamental disagreement between those who place significant value in stats while saying things like "unsustainable and overachieving" and those who say things like "they found a way to win and that's all that matters."

 

 

 

Because no single stat tells the whole story, nor has anyone ever pretended they do. Possession stats are our best predictive metric, but that doesn't mean there's a strict 1:1 relationship between possession ranking and the standings; and if you're basing your entire prediction solely on Fenwick Close, you're doing it wrong...just like if you're basing it solely on whether they won or not. And there are always an outlier or two each year (Toronto and Colorado in recent years). I would also argue that "we're 30th in possession but 25th in the standings" isn't exactly disproving anything, nor is saying 3 teams don't conform when the other 27 teams do. Just because it's not the law of gravity doesn't mean it's some spurious correlation--is there anyone out there who, in a vacuum, would rather be out-shot 35-20 every game than outshoot the opponent 35-20?

 

 

 

This gets to my luck point--it does matter. And even if bounces didn't matter, if you're constantly facing a 20 shot deficit, do you really think none of those are going to be high quality chances over the course of a season?

 

 

 

I had thought about it, but it would be a significant undertaking and I'm not sure how much genuine learning interest there would be versus the stereotypical "stats are good!" "stats are bad!" arguments which seem to be the norm.

can you also explain the meaning of life? J/K

[TrueBlueGED]

10 points better than sh&tty. Which is not McEichel sh&tty. And I know you will say you, personally, haven't said the end-game of the tank is McEichel, you are but a sample point amongst the tankers who ARE looking at McEichel.

 

Not that it matters to me, really, I can live either way, but I feel bad for the people get all upset when the Sabres win and play "well". It's sad.

 

 

 

 

The parameters may be repeatable and but that doesn't mean the parameters or the number they produce have any real value. You can't seriously believe that "luck" can be quantified? Someone chose those numbers as a near-representative of what they think "luck" is. What good is the PDO when, for example, it is low, but the team is on a winning streak? You say time is the variable for PDO, but what good is it when the PDO changes over time?

 

To me, it's like the passenger telling the driver "you're speeding, you will get a ticket" and when the driver gets to their destination they ask the passenger "where's my speeding ticket?". "Well, if you hadn't lowered your speed/if the speed limit didn't increase on our route, you would have surely received a ticket."

 

Anyone who thinks the tank is only about McEichel is woefully misguided. It's about getting to the top of the draft because that's where you have the best chance to select good players.

 

With respect to PDO, let's try sticking with the car example. You're going to drive 300 miles on the highway in a car that averages 35 mpg and you want to keep at a constant speed. Well if you're going downhill, you don't have to have the pedal down as far, so your mpg is going to go up at that point in time, even if you're going the same speed in the same car. Your car is "overachieving" because of, for lack of a better word, luck (since it's really unlikely you know the exact geography of the trip before you take it...you just hit a nice stretch of road and your car is taking advantage of it). But if you interpret that stretch of road to mean your car is going to continue to overachieve in the mpg department, you're going to be disappointed. You know when the geography becomes less favorable, your car is going to "regress" to its "true talent" of 35mpg, or at least move towards that point even if it doesn't hit it exactly. You may not know when exactly when, since you don't know the lay of the land by heart, but you know it's going to happen.

 

You should think of PDO as your teams' equivalent of mpg. It's possible, in certain circumstances, for a Mustang to get mileage like a Prius, but you probably shouldn't bet on that to last--they're both eventually going to get to where they "should" be. If your Mustang is getting 33mpg for a stretch of road that's great, feel free to enjoy it, but it's not going to last. If your Prius hits a stretch where you're getting 37 on a tough stretch of road that sucks, but over the long haul you should absolutely expect that number to "regress" towards where the car typically is.

 

PDO itself regresses really hard towards 100. Elite teams can be higher (it's not crazy for a team like Chicago to post 103 on the year) because their talent dictates they should be, but when a team like the Sabres is posting 105 for a stretch, you should not read more into that than what it is--a favorable stretch of road, not a reflection of underlying changes in the vehicle.

 

can you also explain the meaning of life? J/K

 

Yes. Not kidding.

[DR HOLLIDAY]

Rick sounded really good on the tying goal.

 

He did man, the passion still burns.

[Brawndo]

Anyone who thinks the tank is only about McEichel is woefully misguided. It's about getting to the top of the draft because that's where you have the best chance to select good players.

 

With respect to PDO, let's try sticking with the car example. You're going to drive 300 miles on the highway in a car that averages 35 mpg and you want to keep at a constant speed. Well if you're going downhill, you don't have to have the pedal down as far, so your mpg is going to go up at that point in time, even if you're going the same speed in the same car. Your car is "overachieving" because of, for lack of a better word, luck (since it's really unlikely you know the exact geography of the trip before you take it...you just hit a nice stretch of road and your car is taking advantage of it). But if you interpret that stretch of road to mean your car is going to continue to overachieve in the mpg department, you're going to be disappointed. You know when the geography becomes less favorable, your car is going to "regress" to its "true talent" of 35mpg, or at least move towards that point even if it doesn't hit it exactly. You may not know when exactly when, since you don't know the lay of the land by heart, but you know it's going to happen.

 

You should think of PDO as your teams' equivalent of mpg. It's possible, in certain circumstances, for a Mustang to get mileage like a Prius, but you probably shouldn't bet on that to last--they're both eventually going to get to where they "should" be. If your Mustang is getting 33mpg for a stretch of road that's great, feel free to enjoy it, but it's not going to last. If your Prius hits a stretch where you're getting 37 on a tough stretch of road that sucks, but over the long haul you should absolutely expect that number to "regress" towards where the car typically is.

 

PDO itself regresses really hard towards 100. Elite teams can be higher (it's not crazy for a team like Chicago to post 103 on the year) because their talent dictates they should be, but when a team like the Sabres is posting 105 for a stretch, you should not read more into that than what it is--a favorable stretch of road, not a reflection of underlying changes in the vehicle.

 

 

Are you sure you do not want to do an analytics thread?