GDT - Sabres @ Calgary - January 16, 2019 - 9:30 PM - SN360; SN1; MSG-B

[Eleven]

Well, that's a nice surprise to wake up to!

[...]

So...same team, same coach, totally different game.  Obviously a different result.  Same system and same manner of player usage.  The conclusion?

 

[darksabre]

4 minutes ago, ... said:

So...same team, same coach, totally different game.  Obviously a different result.  Same system and same manner of player usage.  The conclusion?

 

The Sabres certainly played a much faster game last night. I thought they were first to the puck quite a bit which made a huge difference.

I also thought they had much better luck than in previous games. I think Calgary hit the post like 4-5 times.

They also got much better goaltending from Linus than they have been getting from Hutton (lately).

[darksabre]

If you look at the shot chart from last night vs the game against Edmonton, you can see that Calgary managed nearly as many opportunities from high danger areas as Edmonton did. We just got lucky that half of them didn't go in this time.

https://www.hockey-reference.com/boxscores/201901160CGY.html#all_shotchart

[That Aud Smell]

1 hour ago, Doohickie said:

In fact I'd rather win a game we shouldn't have than to beat a team in fancy stats.

Correct.  Shootout wins are worth less in some tiebreaking scenarios.  Aside from that, I have no idea what you're talking about.

I'm talking about the fact that 2 SOG in the 3rd is generally a sign of a team that is not getting the better of play at the game's end. I'm talking about the fact that going 3 for 3 in the team's final 3 SOG is not a formula for long-term success. I'm talking about a desire to see the team's overall underlying metrics move in a positive direction (they've been fairly stuck in or around the same mediocre spot for months now). I'm talking about how a team that has those kind of positive metrics is getting the better of play and will tend to win more games than they lose (unless they're Carolina, I guess).

But I think you knew all of that, more or less, and feigned ignorance of what I was talking about as a means of being dismissive of the point I was making. 

If I'm watching or attending a game, none of these kinds of issues affect my ability to enjoy the game in the moment. Like, if the Sabres pull off a relatively improbable win because the goalie stands on his head and the team gets a few bounces, I'm no less happy with the result. I didn't get to watch much of last night's game. So where, as here, I'm considering the game more from a numbers standpoint, certain issues and considerations come to mind.

Just now, darksabre said:

If you look at the shot chart from last night vs the game against Edmonton, you can see that Calgary managed nearly as many opportunities from high danger areas as Edmonton did. We just got lucky that half of them didn't go in this time.

https://www.hockey-reference.com/boxscores/201901160CGY.html#all_shotchart

Why are you discussing facts? A win is a win.

[Doohicksie]

I know what you're talking about.  I'm summarily dismissing it:  A win is a win.

[LGR4GM]

4 minutes ago, darksabre said:

If you look at the shot chart from last night vs the game against Edmonton, you can see that Calgary managed nearly as many opportunities from high danger areas as Edmonton did. We just got lucky that half of them didn't go in this time.

https://www.hockey-reference.com/boxscores/201901160CGY.html#all_shotchart

You will also see one of the contributing factors into the Sabres shooting percentage woes. The system isn't getting them into the slot enough for good scoring chances. This team plays a lot of get the puck low and then cycle it to the point for a shot. That's not the best idea. 

[darksabre]

1 minute ago, LGR4GM said:

You will also see one of the contributing factors into the Sabres shooting percentage woes. The system isn't getting them into the slot enough for good scoring chances. This team plays a lot of get the puck low and then cycle it to the point for a shot. That's not the best idea. 

Yup. We are consistently bad at getting shots on goal from the "dirty areas". We get there, but other teams are doing a good job of preventing any actual scoring opportunities.

3 of our 4 goals last night were basically luck, including Jack's OT winner which was shot from an angle where most goalies have the entire net covered. It was a true seeing-eye shot. Dahlin's goal was tipped by a Calgary player. McCabe's was nice but mostly the product of a good but rare screen.

You need to be a little lucky to win games like this. And the Sabres had the luck last night.

[That Aud Smell]

1 hour ago, Doohickie said:

Aside from that, I have no idea what you're talking about.

13 minutes ago, Doohickie said:

I know what you're talking about.  

 

[WildCard]

8 hours ago, Ogre said:

I’m very sorry but... Sheary=Conacher...

Sorry.... 

Way off here big guy

21 minutes ago, Doohickie said:

I know what you're talking about.  I'm summarily dismissing it:  A win is a win.

Alrighty then

[...]

22 minutes ago, darksabre said:

Yup. We are consistently bad at getting shots on goal from the "dirty areas". We get there, but other teams are doing a good job of preventing any actual scoring opportunities.

3 of our 4 goals last night were basically luck, including Jack's OT winner which was shot from an angle where most goalies have the entire net covered. It was a true seeing-eye shot. Dahlin's goal was tipped by a Calgary player. McCabe's was nice but mostly the product of a good but rare screen.

You need to be a little lucky to win games like this. And the Sabres had the luck last night.

This is all true.  It's the kind of thing that was working for them during the 10-game streak and working against them lately.  I have to wonder if there's another factor involved that's not being measured, some combination of metrics that, essentially, measures "the luck you make or give up for yourself".

[LGR4GM]

7 minutes ago, ... said:

This is all true.  It's the kind of thing that was working for them during the 10-game streak and working against them lately.  I have to wonder if there's another factor involved that's not being measured, some combination of metrics that, essentially, measures "the luck you make or give up for yourself".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analytics_(ice_hockey)#PDO 

[LGR4GM]

 

How and where we shoot from is a major issue. There are parts of the system that work well. The Defense engaging. The Breakouts. And our passing. There are parts of the system that work like trash. On the PK we form our box and then give up the blueline. On offense we prefer to cycle the puck low to high for a shot as opposed to low to center. We enter the zone after 3 drop passes on the pp which just kills all the momentum. We shoot from the outsides far too often while at the same time rarely screening the goalie. 

[darksabre]

Just now, ... said:

This is all true.  It's the kind of thing that was working for them during the 10-game streak and working against them lately.  I have to wonder if there's another factor involved that's not being measured, some combination of metrics that, essentially, measures "the luck you make or give up for yourself".

I think if you go and look at the streak what you'll see is the Sabres converting on more of their opportunities from the slot than they are currently. They were just as inconsistent then as they are right now wrt generating shots from that area. Sometimes they get 10+, other games they get only a few.

They've since fallen off on their scoring in that area. The question is why.

My guess is Skinner couldn't sustain doing it all himself. He chipped in a lot of goals during that streak from in close.

I think they're also hanging on to the puck too long when they get to the slot. I regularly see the first line guys getting totally mugged in the slot while they're trying to get a perfect look. I think you just gotta get the puck off the stick whenever you get there, regardless of whether you even have a look.

Housley keeps preaching "simplicity" in his pregames and I think it's just something that more skilled players struggle with. They want to make the best play. Not the simplest play. But sometimes you gotta make it simple. Jack's OT winner last night was a perfect example. He just shot it. He didn't try to dangle more. He just shot it.

[Doohicksie]

32 minutes ago, WildCard said:

Alrighty then

The Sabres won.  It's all that matters.

[WildCard]

1 minute ago, Doohickie said:

The Sabres won.  It's all that matters.

Yeah but we're on a forum, to discuss it

[Doohicksie]

44 minutes ago, darksabre said:

3 of our 4 goals last night were basically luck, including Jack's OT winner which was shot from an angle where most goalies have the entire net covered.

I see it totally differently.  4 out of 4 goals last night were great execution by our guys.  One could be attributed to luck due to the tip, but they earned every goal.

1 minute ago, WildCard said:

Yeah but we're on a forum, to discuss it

Right.  I have my view.  You can agree with it, or be wrong.

[That Aud Smell]

8 minutes ago, Doohickie said:

The Sabres won.  It's all that matters.

To some.

[LGR4GM]

6 minutes ago, Doohickie said:

I see it totally differently.  4 out of 4 goals last night were great execution by our guys.  One could be attributed to luck due to the tip, but they earned every goal.

This implies that those goals are sustainable and repeatedly. I do not see that is the case in 2 of the 4. 

[Doohicksie]

Sustainability is a phantom.  None of this is sustainable.  It's skill + system + effort + luck against skill + system + effort + luck in varying degrees.  Luck is just another way of saying probability.  The best players are the ones that can plays that look unsustainably lucky using the skills they have.  You say Jack's OT winner last night isn't sustainable.  I disagree.  He read the play and determined that, (1) all the Flames thought he was going to go off the ice for a substitution, and (2) there were openings high on the goalie.  The probability is low (less than 50%, perhaps less than 25%) that sniping just inside the post/crossbar on shots like that will go in.  But he tried it anyway and it went in.  Is a 25% chance of success really low though?  If you look at baseball, .250 is a respectable batting average.  It's way above a typical goals/shot percentage in the NHL.  That's why they call situations like Jack found himself in a "scoring chance".  It blows my mind that you would call that goal the result of luck.  It was skill, a better than typical probability of success, and taking advantage of a flaw in the other team's system (not playing as hard against someone they expect to do a line change).  The best players score goals on plays like that; it's not luck.

[WildCard]

Just now, Doohickie said:

Sustainability is a phantom.  None of this is sustainable.  It's skill + system + effort + luck against skill + system + effort + luck in varying degrees.  Luck is just another way of saying probability.  The best players are the ones that can plays that look unsustainably lucky using the skills they have.  You say Jack's OT winner last night isn't sustainable.  I disagree.  He read the play and determined that, (1) all the Flames thought he was going to go off the ice for a substitution, and (2) there were openings high on the goalie.  The probability is low (less than 50%, perhaps less than 25%) that sniping just inside the post/crossbar on shots like that will go in.  But he tried it anyway and it went in.  Is a 25% chance of success really low though?  If you look at baseball, .250 is a respectable batting average.  It's way above a typical goals/shot percentage in the NHL.  That's why they call situations like Jack found himself in a "scoring chance".  It blows my mind that you would call that goal the result of luck.  It was skill, a better than typical probability of success, and taking advantage of a flaw in the other team's system (not playing as hard against someone they expect to do a line change).  The best players score goals on plays like that; it's not luck.

This reads like you just did a few lines and you're about to tell me all about the Federal Reserve and big banks

[...]

2 minutes ago, Doohickie said:

Sustainability is a phantom.  None of this is sustainable.  It's skill + system + effort + luck against skill + system + effort + luck in varying degrees.  Luck is just another way of saying probability.  The best players are the ones that can plays that look unsustainably lucky using the skills they have.  You say Jack's OT winner last night isn't sustainable.  I disagree.  He read the play and determined that, (1) all the Flames thought he was going to go off the ice for a substitution, and (2) there were openings high on the goalie.  The probability is low (less than 50%, perhaps less than 25%) that sniping just inside the post/crossbar on shots like that will go in.  But he tried it anyway and it went in.  Is a 25% chance of success really low though?  If you look at baseball, .250 is a respectable batting average.  It's way above a typical goals/shot percentage in the NHL.  That's why they call situations like Jack found himself in a "scoring chance".  It blows my mind that you would call that goal the result of luck.  It was skill, a better than typical probability of success, and taking advantage of a flaw in the other team's system (not playing as hard against someone they expect to do a line change).  The best players score goals on plays like that; it's not luck.

Jack actually tried the exact same approach and, if memory serves, shot that led to them to recovering the puck in the neutral zone.  I was under the impression after the GWG that he had saw something the first time and was sure he could make it work again, hence the reason he kept it and tried again.

[darksabre]

21 minutes ago, Doohickie said:

I see it totally differently.  4 out of 4 goals last night were great execution by our guys.  One could be attributed to luck due to the tip, but they earned every goal.

Right.  I have my view.  You can agree with it, or be wrong.

This is the trap that people keep falling in to that leads them to being super upset when the team gets blown out or struggles after a ten game win streak.

A lot of us would prefer to try to understand what this team actually is so that we can react accordingly.

It doesn't make the win any less enjoyable either.

[Doohicksie]

14 minutes ago, LGR4GM said:

This implies that those goals are sustainable and repeatedly. I do not see that is the case in 2 of the 4. 

I would say all 4 were scored sustainably.  You give a good forward a breakaway, you expect him to score about a third of the time.  You take shots from the point while screening the goalie and with the expectation of a possible tip, you can expect to score... not as frequently as a breakaway, but more frequently than just taking a clear shot without traffic.  You give Jack a path to the goal around the right side, he's going to get more than his share of goals.  All the time?  No.  But with a pretty high probability of success; we've seen Jack do that a lot of the time.  The fact they scored on 3 consecutive shots is a quirk of statistics, but I wouldn't call it luck.  They were all scoring chances with an elevated probability of success.

4 minutes ago, WildCard said:

This reads like you just did a few lines and you're about to tell me all about the Federal Reserve and big banks

I know.  I had the same thought after posting it.

[Doohicksie]

2 minutes ago, darksabre said:

A lot of us would prefer to try to understand what this team actually is so that we can react accordingly.

Accordingly?  When they win I'm happy.  When they lose I'm sad.  That's reacting accordingly.  I don't need fancystats to know if I should be happy or not.