Samson's Flow Posted April 26, 2017 Report Posted April 26, 2017 The only thing Nelson was promised was immediate NHL time to burn a year on his ELC. this is SOP on signing college FA's. Even the middling ones with Ruhweedl got the 10 game end of year in the NHL to burn a year on the contract. That's how you lure these guys.
TheAud Posted April 26, 2017 Report Posted April 26, 2017 There's also that dynamic of Nylander being the younger brother of an NHL player; I think that accelerates a player's development if they played together when they were younger. ROR attributed a lot of his game to playing with Cal when he was a kid. And young Samson has two older NHL brothers. Like Keith and Brent Gretzky?
nfreeman Posted April 26, 2017 Report Posted April 26, 2017 Antipin has to know that nothing is guaranteed. I expect they promised his agent that he'd start the year in the NHL, and he'll probably get a one-way contract (ie same salary whether it's NHL or AHL), but I doubt they promised, or he expects, guaranteed NHL ice time. He and his agent probably looked at the Sabres, saw plenty of available ice time on D, good facilities, a free-spending owner, a good goalie and good forwards and figured it was a promising situation for him.
mjd1001 Posted April 26, 2017 Report Posted April 26, 2017 Larsson was at 49% and won 223 and lost 233 draws. Not like he is terrible or something and not a good reason to go get Jay Beagle. I like Larsson....49% is at the point where with a little work, he can get over 50% and take some wear-and-tear off of ORielly. Faceoffs are something you can work on to get better I'm pretty sure. I also know a lot of people go back and forth on Baptiste and how good he is now or can be. I am on that thinks of all of the guy who played in Rochester last year, he is the one most likely to score at the NHL level consistently next year and beyond. Is he a better overall player than Bailey? Maybe not....but I think he would probably score more goal than Bailey next year on a top line (if it comes to that.) I also think that because Bailey is more versatile, Baily would fit better on a 3rd or 4th line than Baptiste would.
TheAud Posted April 26, 2017 Report Posted April 26, 2017 I like Larsson....49% is at the point where with a little work, he can get over 50% and take some wear-and-tear off of ORielly. Faceoffs are something you can work on to get better I'm pretty sure. Is the face-off thing such a big deal? ROR was at 58% and Larsson at 49%. Assuming 1000 faceoffs (which would easily be #2 on the Sabres this past year in terms of # of FO's) that's a difference of a little over one face-off win per game. If Larsson could improve enough to split the difference we are talking one more face-off win every other game. Don't get me wrong, that would be nice but it pales in comparison to other things like shooting, passing, defense... Am I missing something here?
GASabresIUFAN Posted April 26, 2017 Author Report Posted April 26, 2017 ROR took 1791 faceoffs last year and won 1039. Of those were 294 were on the pk. Larsson took 533 last year of which 23 were on the pk. He won 261. That's 10 more faceoff wins per game won by ROR. We need someone better then Larsson.
TheAud Posted April 27, 2017 Report Posted April 27, 2017 ROR took 1791 faceoffs last year and won 1039. Of those were 294 were on the pk. Larsson took 533 last year of which 23 were on the pk. He won 261. That's 10 more faceoff wins per game won by ROR. We need someone better then Larsson. Is this Paul Hamilton math?
DarthEbriate Posted April 27, 2017 Report Posted April 27, 2017 (edited) ROR took 1791 faceoffs last year and won 1039. Of those were 294 were on the pk. Larsson took 533 last year of which 23 were on the pk. He won 261. That's 10 more faceoff wins per game won by ROR. We need someone better then Larsson. Well.... That's not 10 more faceoff wins/game in the same amount of games or attempts. Larsson missed half the season. Plus, 10 more wins per game, but how many more attempts per game? Is this Paul Hamilton math? :beer: And no, that beer isn't a dig on Sakman. That's just funny. Edited April 27, 2017 by DarthEbriate
TrueBlueGED Posted April 27, 2017 Report Posted April 27, 2017 Is this Paul Hamilton math? Yes, yes it is.
GASabresIUFAN Posted April 27, 2017 Author Report Posted April 27, 2017 (edited) Equating a 49% FO guy vs a 58% FO guy and calling it only 1 FO a game isn't being realisitic about how players are used. No coach is giving important faceoffs to the 49% guy. For example Larsson took 23 PK faceoffs in his 36 games (or about .67 per game) ROR took 294 in his 72 games. That's over 4 per game. These guys aren't comparable and the new coach won't limit's ROR playing time if Larsson is his alternative. However if you get a guy like Beagle, a 56% FO winner, and excellent Pker, you get to limit ROR's pt and keep him effective, Edited April 27, 2017 by GASabresFan
TrueBlueGED Posted April 27, 2017 Report Posted April 27, 2017 Equating a 49% FO guy vs a 58% FO guy and calling it only 1 FO a game isn't being realisitic about how players are used. No coach is giving important faceoffs to the 49% guy. For example Larsson took 23 PK faceoffs in his 36 games (or about .67 per game) ROR took 294 in his 72 games. That's over 4 per game. These guys aren't comparable and the new coach won't limit's ROR playing time if Larsson is his alternative. However if you get a guy like Beagle, a 56% FO winner, and excellent Pker, you get to limit ROR's pt and keep him effective, You're doing this wrong--if you want to know how much ROR's faceoff prowess is worth over Larsson's, you have to hold all else equal...and yes, that includes the number of faceoffs taken. ROR was worth about 2 faceoff wins per game over Larsson if we directly substitute Larsson for O'Reilly. Using O'Reilly's faceoff attempts, Beagle would be worth about 1.5 faceoff wins per game over Larsson with the same usage as O'Reilly got. So really less than that, because no 3rd/4th line center is going to get that many draws per game. Even if you double Larsson's draws taken, and replace him with Beagle, you're talking ~.91 faceoff wins per game improvement. How much is that .91 wins per game worth to you? Because let's be real, in any kind of a critical situation, O'Reilly's gonna be taking them anyway.
GASabresIUFAN Posted April 27, 2017 Author Report Posted April 27, 2017 You're doing this wrong--if you want to know how much ROR's faceoff prowess is worth over Larsson's, you have to hold all else equal...and yes, that includes the number of faceoffs taken. ROR was worth about 2 faceoff wins per game over Larsson if we directly substitute Larsson for O'Reilly. Using O'Reilly's faceoff attempts, Beagle would be worth about 1.5 faceoff wins per game over Larsson with the same usage as O'Reilly got. So really less than that, because no 3rd/4th line center is going to get that many draws per game. Even if you double Larsson's draws taken, and replace him with Beagle, you're talking ~.91 faceoff wins per game improvement. How much is that .91 wins per game worth to you? Because let's be real, in any kind of a critical situation, O'Reilly's gonna be taking them anyway. Your missing the point. The coach is much more likely to trust Beagle to take the critical faceoff. His numbers on the pk are a actually better then ROR's. The goal here is to move some PT off of ROR to someone we can trust. Beagle, who also put up 30 pts last year, is that guy. So what is that worth to me; to keep ROR fresh and healthy? $2 mill.
LGR4GM Posted April 27, 2017 Report Posted April 27, 2017 Larsson is underrated. He was good for us last year. Your missing the point. The coach is much more likely to trust Beagle to take the critical faceoff. His numbers on the pk are a actually better then ROR's. The goal here is to move some PT off of ROR to someone we can trust. Beagle, who also put up 30 pts last year, is that guy. So what is that worth to me; to keep ROR fresh and healthy? $2 mill. And that was playing 81 games, something he hasn't matched in his career, and putting up career points (30 is 10 more points than his next closest season). I don't believe on a less talented Sabres team he is capable of that. So no, I would rather keep Larsson and pay him.
GASabresIUFAN Posted April 27, 2017 Author Report Posted April 27, 2017 Larsson is underrated. He was good for us last year. And that was playing 81 games, something he hasn't matched in his career, and putting up career points (30 is 10 more points than his next closest season). I don't believe on a less talented Sabres team he is capable of that. So no, I would rather keep Larsson and pay him. Then you are going to over work ROR again and his production and play will deteriorate over the season as it did this year.
TrueBlueGED Posted April 27, 2017 Report Posted April 27, 2017 Your missing the point. The coach is much more likely to trust Beagle to take the critical faceoff. His numbers on the pk are a actually better then ROR's. The goal here is to move some PT off of ROR to someone we can trust. Beagle, who also put up 30 pts last year, is that guy. So what is that worth to me; to keep ROR fresh and healthy? $2 mill. No, you don't get to move the goalposts. You were bastardizing a basic comparison to try to say anyone else will win a bazillion more faceoffs than Larsson. Now you're trying to say that Beagle's PK FO% was better than O'Reilly's, as if that's a function of some trait or skill, as opposed to random variance of a near-coin flip event over a cut-down sample. As for the points, Beagle's career average is .24 points per game. Larsson's is .27. You really think ~1 faceoff win per game is worth $2 million? And for the record, any reasonable coach is going to ease O'Reilly's minutes, whether his faceoff replacement is 56% or 49%. Then you are going to over work ROR again and his production and play will deteriorate over the season as it did this year. No, you're not. If my coach doesn't understand that cutting ROR's ice time by a minute+ per game is worth more than losing a faceoff per game, I don't want that person as my coach.
GASabresIUFAN Posted April 27, 2017 Author Report Posted April 27, 2017 (edited) No, you don't get to move the goalposts. You were bastardizing a basic comparison to try to say anyone else will win a bazillion more faceoffs than Larsson. Now you're trying to say that Beagle's PK FO% was better than O'Reilly's, as if that's a function of some trait or skill, as opposed to random variance of a near-coin flip event over a cut-down sample. As for the points, Beagle's career average is .24 points per game. Larsson's is .27. You really think ~1 faceoff win per game is worth $2 million? And for the record, any reasonable coach is going to ease O'Reilly's minutes, whether his faceoff replacement is 56% or 49%. No, you're not. If my coach doesn't understand that cutting ROR's ice time by a minute+ per game is worth more than losing a faceoff per game, I don't want that person as my coach. Coaches will do anything to win games, because their jobs depend on it. If it means overworking ROR because he doesn't have another option he will. Winning, FOs ,especially in the playoffs, is critical to puck possession and playing winning hockey. It's one of the reason the intelligent managers in TOR went and acquired Boyle at the trade deadline. The Sabres last year, despite ROR, finished under 50%. Edited April 27, 2017 by GASabresFan
WildCard Posted April 27, 2017 Report Posted April 27, 2017 Bylsma had other options, he's just an idiot
LGR4GM Posted April 27, 2017 Report Posted April 27, 2017 No, you don't get to move the goalposts. You were bastardizing a basic comparison to try to say anyone else will win a bazillion more faceoffs than Larsson. Now you're trying to say that Beagle's PK FO% was better than O'Reilly's, as if that's a function of some trait or skill, as opposed to random variance of a near-coin flip event over a cut-down sample. As for the points, Beagle's career average is .24 points per game. Larsson's is .27. You really think ~1 faceoff win per game is worth $2 million? And for the record, any reasonable coach is going to ease O'Reilly's minutes, whether his faceoff replacement is 56% or 49%. No, you're not. If my coach doesn't understand that cutting ROR's ice time by a minute+ per game is worth more than losing a faceoff per game, I don't want that person as my coach. exactly. Coaches will do anything to win games, because their jobs depend on it. If it means overworking ROR because he doesn't have another option he will. Winning, FO's ,especially in the playoffs is critical. It's one of the reason the intelligent managers in TOR went and acquired Boyle at the trade deadline. Didn't you just say overworking ROR would result in decrease production from him and therefore to extrapolate your argument, we would lose more? The intelleigent managers in Toronto aren't in the playoffs anymore, so good for them for acquiring a faceoff specialist. I'm not paying a guy to take faceoffs. I am def not paying a 31 year old guy. Johan Larsson... will be fine.
TrueBlueGED Posted April 27, 2017 Report Posted April 27, 2017 Coaches will do anything to win games, because their jobs depend on it. If it means overworking ROR because he doesn't have another option he will. Winning, FOs ,especially in the playoffs, is critical to puck possession and playing winning hockey. It's one of the reason the intelligent managers in TOR went and acquired Boyle at the trade deadline. The Sabres last year, despite ROR, finished under 50%. 1) A fresher ROR for 20 minutes with 1.5 extra minutes of a subpar replacement is a better option than a worn-down ROR for 21.5 minutes simply to avoid playing the subpar option. A coach who sees otherwise is what I would refer to as a bad coach. 2) There is no meaningful statistical correlation between faceoffs and possession.
WildCard Posted April 27, 2017 Report Posted April 27, 2017 Feel like there have been a lot of studies on how faceoffs mean nothing anyways
TrueBlueGED Posted April 27, 2017 Report Posted April 27, 2017 Feel like there have been a lot of studies on how faceoffs mean nothing anyways Close enough to nothing that it's not worth anywhere near all the fuss over them. You'd like to win more than you lose, and you'd rather win a particular draw than lose it....but man, the way they get talked about, you'd swear they were goals or something.
nfreeman Posted April 27, 2017 Report Posted April 27, 2017 I'm nominating "Paul Hamilton math" for immediate platinum membership in the Sabrespace inside joke lexicon. #Hammymath
GASabresIUFAN Posted April 27, 2017 Author Report Posted April 27, 2017 The articles I have read show that a higher FO% equates to about a 20% increase in Corsi. Considering we were one of the worst Corsi team and all our centers outside ROR were under 50% (Jack was under 40%). It does follow that to improve Corsi it is in our interest to improve our FO%. There will always be other factors that effect the results, but winning FO% is a good place to start. FYI, a reduction of 2 minutes per game in ROR PT equates to 164 minutes of saved wear and tear or about 8 games of play at 20 minutes per game (or 10% of the season).
nfreeman Posted April 27, 2017 Report Posted April 27, 2017 The articles I have read show that a higher FO% equates to about a 20% increase in Corsi. Considering we were one of the worst Corsi team and all our centers outside ROR were under 50% (Jack was under 40%). It does follow that to improve Corsi it is in our interest to improve our FO%. There will always be other factors that effect the results, but winning FO% is a good place to start. FYI, a reduction of 2 minutes per game in ROR PT equates to 164 minutes of saved wear and tear or about 8 games of play at 20 minutes per game (or 10% of the season). The first sentence of this post cannot possibly be right. #Hammymath. Try it! It's easy and fun!
WildCard Posted April 27, 2017 Report Posted April 27, 2017 (edited) A higher FO% is a rather vague number to pair with about 20% Corsi improvement. 20% Corsi improvement is a massive, massive number Edited April 27, 2017 by WildCard
Recommended Posts