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

[Weave]

2 hours 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’d listen.

[Weave]

1 hour ago, Doohickie said:

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.

I am increasingly more interested in the simple won/lost/was I entertained than all of the complication we have with sports today.  

I don’t really care about the rest.  Teams pay alot of salary to staff that should worry about all the rest.  I do not have the free space to worry about what those people are being paid to worry about. 

[Doohicksie]

1 hour ago, PASabreFan said:

I'm to the point of calling for a dedicated club for analytics and its banning from normal threads. I bet I'd get a majority, maybe a very strong majority of posters, to support it.

I'm not a stats guy, but I wouldn't support that.  I think it's good to get the exposure in general.  My objection is when the stats wizards descend upon a thread after a win and try to convince me it never happened, that even though we won, we should have lost.  I'm not to the point that I want to somehow ban them from doing that, but I don't appreciate the negativity.

I'm not advocating for this (at least not yet), but I wonder if maybe this situation led to it:  On HFBoards, there are GDTs.  There are also  "GBU" threads for each game.  GBU stands for "The Good, the Bad and the Ugly."  Post-game analysis goes into the GBU threads.  I think there is a difference between Hockey Hounds "Go Sabres!" posts and the stat wizards' post-game analysis.

Then stats discussions kind of naturally would go into the GBU/post-game threads and maybe that would be enforced by social norms of the board rather than formal rules (i.e., a fancystat post in the GDT that is relevant to what's currently happening in the game would be fine, but an extended stats dissection after the game might not). 

I'm just thinking out loud here... brainstorming.

Edited January 17, 2019 by Doohickie

[darksabre]

Just now, Doohickie said:

I'm not a stats guy, but I wouldn't support that.  I think it's good to get the exposure in general.  My objection is when the stats wizards descend upon a thread upon a win and try to convince me it never happened, that even though we won, we should have lost.  I'm not to the point that I want to somehow ban them from doing that, but I don't appreciate the negativity.

I'm not advocating for this (at least not yet), but I wonder if maybe this situation led to it:  On HFBoards, there are GDTs.  There are also  "GBU" threads for each game.  GBU stands for "The Good, the Bad and the Ugly."  Post-game analysis goes into the GBU threads.  I think there is a difference between Hockey Hounds "Go Sabres!" posts and the stat wizards' post-game analysis.

Then stats discussions kind of naturally would go into the GBU/post-game threads and maybe that would be enforced by social norms of the board rather than formal rules (i.e., a fancystat post in the GDT that is relevant to what's currently happening in the game would be fine, but an extended stats dissection after the game might not). 

I'm just thinking out loud here... brainstorming.

No one is actually doing this.

[Doohicksie]

1 hour ago, SwampD said:

Johnny Hockey is really good. He's fun to watch.

So is Eichel, when he's 100%.  Even 80% Eichel can be a game changer.

[Doohicksie]

59 minutes ago, LGR4GM said:

If you are fed up with hearing about it, block the posters who talk about it or don't read them. 

This is a good point.  If someone pushes my buttons, I simply put them on ignore for a while, for a cooling off period.  Most of them I take off ignore after a while.

[Doohicksie]

10 minutes ago, darksabre said:

No one is actually doing this.

I'm speaking metaphorically, perhaps hyberbolically.  It's pretty much what that feels like to me in this thread.

Edited January 17, 2019 by Doohickie

[Doohicksie]

I mentioned baseball earlier, and I think they have a better attitude toward stats.  In this thread the message is that scoring on 3 consecutive shots is simply not sustainable.  If three consecutive players hit home runs in a baseball game, the reaction would more likely to be marveling at the statistic improbability of it, and not trying to extrapolate out to what it means to the team going forward.

The Sabres hit three consecutive home runs.  I think that's marvelous and don't try to convince me otherwise.   I like stats, I just don't like when other people tell me how I should feel about them.

Edited January 17, 2019 by Doohickie

[SABRES 0311]

13 minutes ago, Doohickie said:

So is Eichel, when he's 100%.  Even 80% Eichel can be a game changer.

Yeah he can be a game changer but Gaudreau (spelling) is almost mesmerizing. He holds on to it and never stops moving. Imagine if we had both. 

[darksabre]

7 minutes ago, Doohickie said:

I mentioned baseball earlier, and I think they have a better attitude toward stats.  In this thread the message is that scoring on 3 consecutive shots is simply not sustainable.  If three consecutive players hit home runs in a baseball game, the reaction would more likely to be marveling at the statistic improbability of it, and not trying to extrapolate out to what it means to the team going forward.

The Sabres hit three consecutive home runs.  I think that's marvelous and don't try to convince me otherwise.   I like stats, I just don't like when other people tell me how I should feel about them.

No one is trying to convince you it's not marvelous.

Actually, no one is trying to convince you of anything.

But if you, like a lot of people, want to understand why the Sabres won 10 in a row and are now not doing that, looking at the improbability of those 3 marvelous goals is a pretty good place to start.

It's all about how much you want to dig. If you don't want to dig, fine. But the people who want to dig aren't obligated to care too much about people who find that digging upsetting or offensive or whatever.

[Broken Ankles]

40 minutes ago, LGR4GM said:

Good way to get people to stop posting here. Maybe I don't want to read takes from people saying "Pilut obviously should be sat because Phil knows best" when I can show using data that wasn't true. If you are fed up with hearing about it, block the posters who talk about it or don't read them. 

  I think the concern many have regarding statistics is how many posters use them to justify or contend a position, often times without ever seeing that player or team over a period of time.  Obviously the tools are more robust and should be used "in addition to", not "in replacement of" game management by Coaches and GM's.  Most of which have far more experience than any of us.   I personally dislike when some throw Corsi/Fenwick/HDCF%  stats as an absolute or empirical truth in rating a player.  Empirical data is acquired by observation or experimentation. Often times the data is anecdotal, but those that quote the stats are reticent to accept it as such.  

  I think your observations on the scoring chances inside the high danger zones are valid, and definitely a concern on the PP.   But I would argue that our shots from the point are not a problem.  Our problem is deflections (or lack thereof) and rebounds.  Weak players like Casey Middlestadt, Tage Thompson and Conor Sheary contribute to this.  In EDM, their first two goals were from inside, but both deflections.   Buffalo tries, but their not as effecitve in execution based on talent or net front presence?   Their last goal was a rebound, slammed home by Leon, as was Johnny Hockey's first period goal last night.  I can think of a dozen more that did not result in a goal due to luck, good saves or missed shots by the opposition.   Hopefully these charts can help identify the gaps and improve our Defensive positioning, and recognizing other teams strengths when game planning.   But I refuse to accept these as absolute truths when things like how a goaltender can impact this number, or how a failed clear in the D-zone by a player that should not be on the team 30 seconds before this shot/goal was made affected it.     And with respect to the PP, I have watched a fair amount of Calgary games, and their passing inside is a function of size and skill.  The Sabres had to have seen this in video before the game as CGY has scored like this the entire year, and yet teams still struggle agaisnt it.   Sean Monahan and Matthew Tkachuk are better suited than Skinner/Eichel or Skinner/Reinhart to execute these plays.   But to your point, maybe the Sabres should try to replicate.  At this point, our PP needs to try something new.   

  Lastly to your Pilut point.  Data and more importantly the eye test says he should be playing over Scandella.  But we don't know what Phil has been told.  I myself think the conspiracy theory that Botts wants to trade Macro has legs, so the decision was to sit Pilut over Nate so he could showcase Scandella could be valid.  In saying this, I also cannot simply have my stat department tell my head coach who should be playing each night.  

[...]

14 minutes ago, darksabre said:

No one is trying to convince you it's not marvelous.

Actually, no one is trying to convince you of anything.
 

While "convince" might not be the most accurate word, it is close.  I can see how people interpret many posts that use some AS as the foundation of the argument as trying to "convince" others that what they are seeing isn't good/right/nice/joyful/etc.

So, I can enter Smell's post earlier as evidence:

"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)."

or your own:

"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."

Doesn't matter whether you think you're being all factual and objective, it comes off as being down on the team - in the moment.  

It's a two sided street.  I, personally, understand you're not trying to be negative.  The regulars here who pull out the stats as a means of forwarding the conversation are clearly fans and love the team - they wouldn't be regulars.  But, context and timing are important, too. Posts like the two above, immediately following a game (win or lose), are going to be viewed from people emotionally engaged in the moment.  You can not fault people for that.

I think both sides should just stand down.  Unless it's a stranger coming in here posting weird things, we all "know" each other and we all "know" we're fans and here for the same fundamental thing.  

 

 

 

 

[Doohicksie]

43 minutes ago, SABRES 0311 said:

Yeah he can be a game changer but Gaudreau (spelling) is almost mesmerizing. He holds on to it and never stops moving. Imagine if we had both. 

So can Jack.  We watch him all the time though, so we tend to see his warts as much as what he does well.  I was on a non-sports forum that had a hockey thread and people who are not fans of the Sabres are actually quite high on them. They've viewed as an up-and-coming team led by a budding superstar (Eichel).

[darksabre]

@...

 

The problem here is that if you read, say, my post you quoted as negative that's YOUR problem. You're projecting on to my posts something that isn't there. That's not my fault in any way. 

Edited January 17, 2019 by darksabre

[...]

1 minute ago, darksabre said:

@...

 

The problem here is that if you read, say, my post you quoted as negative that's YOUR problem. You're projecting on to my posts something that isn't there. That's not my fault in any way. 

That's my conclusion at the end.

HOWEVER...

I've been banned for approaching my posting that way.  I don't believe there is consensus on that philosophy - that you are not responsible for how someone interprets your posts.

[darksabre]

Just now, ... said:

That's my conclusion at the end.

HOWEVER...

I've been banned for approaching my posting that way.  I don't believe there is consensus on that philosophy - that you are not responsible for how someone interprets your posts.

I think that would make sense for things that are more controversial or possibly offensive. But this isn't any of those things lol 

[Doohicksie]

4 minutes ago, darksabre said:

@...

 

The problem here is that if you read, say, my post you quoted as negative that's YOUR problem. You're projecting on to my posts something that isn't there. That's not my fault in any way. 

No, that's a negative post.  If you can't see that, that's *your* problem.

That's my last shot, I'm taking the advice of @... and standing down now.

[darksabre]

Just now, Doohickie said:

No, that's a negative post.  If you can't see that, that's *your* problem.

That's my last shot, I'm taking the advice of @... and standing down now.

It's not a negative post at all. You're projecting. 

[Doohicksie]

2 minutes ago, darksabre said:

It's not a negative post at all. You're projecting. 

[SABRES 0311]

9 minutes ago, Doohickie said:

So can Jack.  We watch him all the time though, so we tend to see his warts as much as what he does well.  I was on a non-sports forum that had a hockey thread and people who are not fans of the Sabres are actually quite high on them. They've viewed as an up-and-coming team led by a budding superstar (Eichel).

Maybe. I don’t watch enough of Calgary to definitively compare the two but I was impressed with what I saw.

Let me look at the advanced stats. ? I’m kidding by the way.

Edited January 17, 2019 by SABRES 0311

[Stoner]

I was gonna write some more smack, but instead let's revisit that ass over teakettles save by Ullmark or Eichel's acting job on his winning rush. Especially Eichel. It was Oscar worthy. His body language drifting around his own zone, right hand even off his stick, after being out there from the start of OT was perfect. But the suggestion of a drop pass to Dahlin that would give time for a change was the real trick of the eye. Tkachuk bit and turned toward Dahlin, opening up space for a Jack attack.

[Doohicksie]

22 minutes ago, PASabreFan said:

let's revisit that ass over teakettles save by Ullmark

I need to re-watch the replay of that.  I'm still not quite sure how the puck stayed out of the net.

[Thorner]

1 hour ago, PASabreFan said:

I was gonna write some more smack, but instead let's revisit that ass over teakettles save by Ullmark or Eichel's acting job on his winning rush. Especially Eichel. It was Oscar worthy. His body language drifting around his own zone, right hand even off his stick, after being out there from the start of OT was perfect. But the suggestion of a drop pass to Dahlin that would give time for a change was the real trick of the eye. Tkachuk bit and turned toward Dahlin, opening up space for a Jack attack.

Good breakdown, as soon as he scored I was saying out loud that Jack punked them. It was a cerebral play as much as anything, a play that great players make. 

Suck it, Rob Ray. 

[steveoath]

Just managed to watch the game. Very enjoyable game of hockey.

I really like Larsson, Girgs and Okposo as the checking line. Maybe not what we wanted the 6 million dollar man to be doing, but they worked hard for one another.

On what planet did Dahlin evolve? He was fantastic, so composed. I hope he can keep up his point streak.

As well as Reinhart has been playing I'd like to see Tommer with Jack and Jeff. Tage is showing that he could be a big (lol) player for us in the future. 

So, yeah. I'm happy.

[Doohicksie]

I can see where Thompson should work with Jack and Jeff.  In reality though he doesn't seem to have chemistry with them.  he's trying to keep up with their playmaking which is like four-dimensional chess and he knows how to play checkers.  I think Tage does better on a line where he's one of the primary playmakers.