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

[Doohicksie]

Sounds like he needs some Kyckling nudelsoppa

 

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

[Randall Flagg]

Don't worry, I'm sure someone out there is going to confuse the result with the actual product.

Is every single win this team has all year going to be a statistical anomaly? And if it is, then why is it even called an anomaly? Jeepers. :P If the result in the win, then the way they got there is by winning the game, if I went to the game last night, that's good enough for me, no? When they're good again, and they lose a game that they were the better team, I guaranteeeee it doesn't get the scrutiny these wins do every single time.

[TrueBlueGED]

Is every single win this team has all year going to be a statistical anomaly? And if it is, then why is it even called an anomaly? Jeepers. :P If the result in the win, then the way they got there is by winning the game, if I went to the game last night, that's good enough for me, no? When they're good again, and they lose a game that they were the better team, I guaranteeeee it doesn't get the scrutiny these wins do every single time.

 

The anomaly would be if we significantly outperform the numbers at the end of the year. The game by game stuff is just random noise. In other words, we'd have to have a multiple seasons equivalent of this little stretch to really make me bat an eyelash in the "it's not an anomaly" direction.

 

I just don't understand how somebody can watch this team regularly and see anything other than a horrible team getting some fortunate luck and falling backwards into some wins. I know I spout off about stats a lot, but I really do watch most of the games too, and I just see a team getting smoked basically every night. To me, watching this team and seeing meaningful progress is akin to watching Orton and seeing good enough quarterbacking. I legitimately cannot see that interpretation. Zemgus is of course a stud, and Risto looks great. But Zadorov has struggled recently, and Ennis/Stafford/Stewart are doing essentially what they've done their whole careers.

[rumblefish]

all the talk has been this is a development year, if this in fact true, than I can't wait to see the finished product, bull dog was feed with a nice comeback and shoot out win, RUFF< RUFF< RUF

Edited December 28, 2014 by rumblefish

[sicknfla]

If this team can learn to win when they clearly are not the better team then that is only a positive for the future. These young kids that are a big reason these games are being won will only take the new players that eventually make us a more talented team and teach them how to win.

 

How could anyone find a negative in this? They have proved it enough this year. It is not a fluke. They are winning games because of heart and effort. We can't bitch about that.

[Sabres Fan in NS]

I did not watch the game, but saw the highlights.

 

I did check the score at the end of the second period and saw the score (3 - 0). I figured, oh well, the Islanders are a far better team.

 

Checked this morning and saw that the Sabres won in a SO. Watched the highlights ... the goals. All three in regulation were the result of hard work.

 

I'll say it now, IMO, the Sabres have turned the corner and I think it is great.

[Randall Flagg]

The anomaly would be if we significantly outperform the numbers at the end of the year. The game by game stuff is just random noise. In other words, we'd have to have a multiple seasons equivalent of this little stretch to really make me bat an eyelash in the "it's not an anomaly" direction.

 

I just don't understand how somebody can watch this team regularly and see anything other than a horrible team getting some fortunate luck and falling backwards into some wins. I know I spout off about stats a lot, but I really do watch most of the games too, and I just see a team getting smoked basically every night. To me, watching this team and seeing meaningful progress is akin to watching Orton and seeing good enough quarterbacking. I legitimately cannot see that interpretation. Zemgus is of course a stud, and Risto looks great. But Zadorov has struggled recently, and Ennis/Stafford/Stewart are doing essentially what they've done their whole careers.

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.

[Sabres Fan in NS]

Corsi blah, blah, blah ...

 

A win is a win.

 

No one goes back and takes wins away if they were ugly.

[...]

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.

[SwampD]

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.

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!!!!

[inkman]

3 goals on 3 shots in under 6 minutes. Does that sound like a game plan for sustained winning?

[...]

No, you're right. And the first two periods were awful. But they won. WTF? And "the numbers" predicted an awful team, but their record belies that.

 

If THIS trend continues, it tells me all of the predictive stats are missing an element or two.

[Hoss]

No, you're right. And the first two periods were awful. But they won. WTF? And "the numbers" predicted an awful team, but their record belies that.

 

If THIS trend continues, it tells me all of the predictive stats are missing an element or two.

 

They're still an awful team.

[Brawndo]

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.

 

PDO

 

What does it measure?

PDO is a measure of luck. Have you ever thought, around mid-season, that some of the league leaders were more lucky than good? That for whatever reason they were getting a lot of fortunate deflections or friendly bounces?

One way to check that intuition is to see if their shooting percentages or their save percentages are surprisingly high. And that’s just what PDO does. It adds together a team’s shooting percentage and its save percentage to get a single number (ignoring power play situations).

An unusually high PDO is the mark of a lucky team.

[inkman]

No, you're right. And the first two periods were awful. But they won. WTF? And "the numbers" predicted an awful team, but their record belies that.

 

If THIS trend continues, it tells me all of the predictive stats are missing an element or two.

I like that you used trend. Their are ebbs and flows to a season. Once enough of a sample size is present, an overall trend can be determined. Pointing to their best and worst stretches of the season tells us nothing. Let's check where they are in 5 games. Half a season should be a decent gauge.

[...]

 

 

They're still an awful team.

 

But they're not McEichel awful.

[Randall Flagg]

We are 14th in PDO this year.

 

Does this mean we get an average amount of luck?

Edited December 28, 2014 by Randall Flagg

[Eleven]

PDO

 

 

What does it measure?

PDO is a measure of luck. Have you ever thought, around mid-season, that some of the league leaders were more lucky than good? That for whatever reason they were getting a lot of fortunate deflections or friendly bounces?

One way to check that intuition is to see if their shooting percentages or their save percentages are surprisingly high. And that’s just what PDO does. It adds together a team’s shooting percentage and its save percentage to get a single number (ignoring power play situations).

An unusually high PDO is the mark of a lucky team.

 

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

 

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

[...]

 

I like that you used trend. Their are ebbs and flows to a season. Once enough of a sample size is present, an overall trend can be determined. Pointing to their best and worst stretches of the season tells us nothing. Let's check where they are in 5 games. Half a season should be a decent gauge.

 

Agreed. I've said that around here many times since the upward swing. But, right now, if it weren't for injuries and sickness, the trend was for a strong swing in the direction of winning.

 

 

 

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

 

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

 

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.

[Stoner]

No, you're right. And the first two periods were awful. But they won. WTF? And "the numbers" predicted an awful team, but their record belies that.

 

If THIS trend continues, it tells me all of the predictive stats are missing an element or two.

The stats should be put under the microscope a little more. Is Corsi based on the raw numbers that the league play by play logs generate, or do these sites count them independently? Shot counts have been looked upon suspiciously in a lot of arenas. Hits are also overcounted (and undercounted) in some places. Jim Lorentz used to talk about this every other game. He never looked at the stats.

 

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

 

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

 

You don't even want to know about PPDO.

[Randall Flagg]

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?

Edited December 28, 2014 by Randall Flagg

[SwampD]

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?

The Paddle of ETHRON - He who gives you the pipe.

[...]

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?

 

Clearly the stats are correct, it's just that the Sabres aren't conforming to them.

[Sabres Fan in NS]

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?

 

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.

[DR HOLLIDAY]

3 goals on 3 shots in under 6 minutes. Does that sound like a game plan for sustained winning?

 

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