An engrained losing culture

[LTS]

19 minutes ago, dudacek said:

This. It's hard to judge a coach on systems or teaching, or leadership because we don't see what the coach is actually doing in any of these areas.

Our judgement is heavily weighted to results, plus player deployment and press conferences filtered through our own biases.

To a certain degree I think this is accurate, but the output on the ice is a reflection of the preparation and attention to detail that occurs in practice.  The clear lack of discipline in the defensive zone, the lack of puck possession, etc. are all reflections of what the coaching staff are teaching.  

I don't disregard the article from the former captains of the Sabres or the input of others who have coached and played because their experience gives them an awareness that others simply don't have.  

 

[dudacek]

Just now, LTS said:

To a certain degree I think this is accurate, but the output on the ice is a reflection of the preparation and attention to detail that occurs in practice.  The clear lack of discipline in the defensive zone, the lack of puck possession, etc. are all reflections of what the coaching staff are teaching.  

I don't disregard the article from the former captains of the Sabres or the input of others who have coached and played because their experience gives them an awareness that others simply don't have.  

 

I mostly agree with this. It's hard, but it's not impossible, and big picture stuff is usually pretty apparent over time.

[Thorner]

45 minutes ago, Randall Flagg said:

Probably because there's never been a more vague topic more consistently spoken of on this board. 

I know I was one of the most guilty ones of it for a long time, but the reality is nobody knows anything about "systems' or how much they impact things. 

When I did the Bylsma system thing, I wasn't even showing evidence of a "system" technically - I assumed that he instructed forwards to do one thing in one small area of the game (breakouts) and then counted outcomes of all breakouts over a span of 8 games. This is "sort of" analyzing a "system" but it's really analyzing hockey skills of players maybe or maybe not doing one of the 100 things they are told/encouraged/taught to do during one of 25 different common hockey scenarios. Hardly an overview of an entire "system"

 

I don’t need to know anything about systems to know Krueger’s was bad. 

Regardless, we know for a fact it was low event, and if you look back on my post I said I wasn’t sure if we’d win more, but I think we’ll score more. Provided Granato doesn’t favour the same low event style 

[Thorner]

2 hours ago, Kong said:

I know some/most of you don't like Hamilton, but in his latest column I thought there were some interesting and revealing nuggets

 

Many of us heard about Krueger, or whoever ran practices, not calling offsides in practice. We wonder why the Sabres can't complete simple passes like all the other NHL teams do...but I had no idea that many of these players don't know who Gilbert Perreault is. That blows my mind. These players need to be identified and jettisoned. I hate mercenaries and that's what many of "our" guys and perhaps Krueger, had in common.

This is like when people say an actor/actress needs to read the book before acting in a movie based on it. 

I don’t care if my players don’t know Gil Perreault from Gil Gottfried if the are excellent hockey players

Of course I want them to take pride in being a Sabre, but to say they should be jettisoned if they aren’t up on Sabres past is a bit ridiculous imo 

[Randall Flagg]

27 minutes ago, Thorny said:

I don’t need to know anything about systems to know Krueger’s was bad. 

Regardless, we know for a fact it was low event, and if you look back on my post I said I wasn’t sure if we’d win more, but I think we’ll score more. Provided Granato doesn’t favour the same low event style 

Was Krueger's system low event or are the skaters low event? They've been low event since the tank ended. I certainly don't think Phil Housley was a coach who preached low event hockey, but that"s what his team was. 

I just haven't seen verbal proof or proof on tape that Ralph wanted us to play in a way that ensured we got about 2 scoring  chances per night. I've read a lot of people assert that (and I do believe that he wants players to get back and be responsible, but so does Sheldon Keefe) but I don't necessarily believe that they have this knowledge and derived it from objective analysis 

[Thorner]

1 minute ago, Randall Flagg said:

Was Krueger's system low event or are the skaters low event? They've been low event since the tank ended. I certainly don't think Phil Housley was a coach who preached low event hockey, but that"s what his team was. 

I just haven't seen verbal proof or proof on tape that Ralph wanted us to play in a way that ensured we got about 2 scoring  chances per night. I've read a lot of people assert that (and I do believe that he wants players to get back and be responsible, but so does Sheldon Keefe) but I don't necessarily believe that they have this knowledge and derived it from objective analysis 

I mean, yes? From everything I've read from people I trust, the data breaks it down as very low event. More so than other recent seasons with other coaches. It's a pretty commonly held belief, they could definitely all be wrong, but considering just how universally the roster has been affected, I'm reasonably confident in it. 

YMMV

[Thorner]

There's never been an instance in the history of time where, when looking at and analyzing hockey, all the variables were able to be removed but one, leading to a confirmed, irrevocable conclusion. There's always a certain amount of guesswork, in the end you do have to defer to results. 

Edited March 18, 2021 by Thorny

[dudacek]

I think the most damning piece of evidence of the system being an issue is the across-the-board drop-off in scoring by proven talents.

[Randall Flagg]

3 minutes ago, Thorny said:

There's never been an instance in the history of time where, when looking at an analyzing hockey, all the variables were able to be removed but one, leading to a confirmed, irrevocable conclusion. There's always a certain amount of guesswork, in the end you do have to defer to results. 

I think this is what answers the original point I responded to, why that might be underappreciated.

 

I've just never seen a compelling hockey system breakdown. On the other hand, watch cover 1's bills videos. It is stunning how much detail there is in football, and how easily the chess match can be explained if you know what you're talking about. It's far more concrete and far more likely that two independent observers can watch the same things and come to the same conclusions than with "hockey systems"

Edited March 18, 2021 by Randall Flagg

[Randall Flagg]

2 minutes ago, dudacek said:

I think the most damning piece of evidence of the system being an issue is the across-the-board drop-off in scoring by proven talents.

I agree and I agree it's an issue. 

I would give $1000 to anyone who can give me a cover-1 tier video explaining it, and backing up the film with stats (and not like team level performance stats, but new stats that show how ours differs from different systems employed by other teams)

[dudacek]

Ralph's history is getting less-talented teams to disrupt more talented, built around making it the goalie's job to stop a lot of relatively easy shots.

That does not fit the skill set of Dahlin, Eichel, Hall, Skinner, Montour, Jokiharju, or Miller — all of whom thrive best playing high-event hockey.

[Thorner]

2 minutes ago, Randall Flagg said:

I think this is what answers the original point I responded to, why that might be underappreciated.

 

I've just never seen a compelling hockey system breakdown. On the other hand, watch cover 1's bills videos. It is stunning how much detail there is, and how easily the chess match can be explained if you know what you're talking about. It's far more concrete and far more likely that two independent observers can watch the same things and come to the same conclusions than with "hockey systems"

It's for football? Not surprising at all considering the non-fluid nature of the sport. We see it with baseball, how easily advanced stats are able to be worked in, with the isolated plays it's easier to isolate the variables. Football wouldn't be as much, but much more so than hockey with all that fluidity, and with it more randomness, too. 

[dudacek]

4 minutes ago, Randall Flagg said:

I think this is what answers the original point I responded to, why that might be underappreciated.

 

I've just never seen a compelling hockey system breakdown. On the other hand, watch cover 1's bills videos. It is stunning how much detail there is in football, and how easily the chess match can be explained if you know what you're talking about. It's far more concrete and far more likely that two independent observers can watch the same things and come to the same conclusions than with "hockey systems"

I think there is a big issue with fans bred on football applying football premises to hockey.

Football is chess. Hockey is pinball.

[Thorner]

1 minute ago, dudacek said:

I think there is a big issue with fans bred on football applying football premises to hockey.

Football is chess. Hockey is pinball.

So THAT'S why we've always felt that unrelenting gravitational pull towards a black hole or nothingness on Sabres gameday! 

[Randall Flagg]

4 minutes ago, dudacek said:

I think there is a big issue with fans bred on football applying football premises to hockey.

Football is chess. Hockey is pinball.

Yep. Which is why system talk now bores me and when some posters (not you guys) lean heavily into it, their stance becomes something I dismiss offhand 

[Kong]

There was an interesting quote by the new coach of the Flames Darryl Sutter. Last night his team lost 7-3 to Edmonton. What he said IMO sounds like the kind of message the historically goal-challenged Sabres need to hear...

Quote

"This team, this group of players have to learn, they don't have the firepower to not put themselves in a position to be good defenders or to check or to play well in their zone."

 

[Marvin]

I am a hockey systems guy.  There are various systems that give a decent structure for the players to work within.  They are obviously looser than they are in football or basketball, but they still exist.  I can tell you, loosely, what the strengths and weaknesses of the basic systems.  Consider me an educated, but still naive, amateur.

My Background:

I was lucky enough to be at a hockey camp where Fred Shero and Floyd Smith were featured trainers.  Bad news -- Shero outclassed Smith in ways even a 10 year old could see.

When I was at University of Maryland, Bryan and Terry Murray allowed me and other UMd players go to their Saturday practises and game-day skates to watch and ask questions.  (Yes, I did meet GMTM there.)

At Michigan State, Ron Mason had open practises for students, so I watched them and asked him questions afterwards.  He was always very free with information.  Moreover, the Director of Undergraduate Studies in the Math Department I was in was also a junior hockey coach who organised the coaching clinics run by Mike Ilitch, whom he went to college with.  So we spent hours (and I mean hours) converting hockey structures into precise mathematical/statistical models.  He was a differential geometer and I was an applied guy who could create models and run simulations, so we melded perfectly.  Also, we were doing what we now call sports analytics in 1992.

[Stoner]

5 hours ago, inkman said:

The Sabres are making beer?  They’ll need to engrain their yeast cultures at the right time to ingrain the flavor that leaves a bad taste in your mouth.  
 

 

Careful now.

4 hours ago, dudacek said:

I think there is a big issue with fans bred on football applying football premises to hockey.

Football is chess. Hockey is pinball.

And have we also arrived at the answer for why hockey analytics is rubbish?

[Marvin]

29 minutes ago, PASabreFan said:

Careful now.

And have we also arrived at the answer for why hockey analytics is rubbish?

IMHO, they are not rubbish -- but you have to read they with a bit of skepticism.  For instance, Dallas Smith had great underlying numbers for most of his career as a defenceman.  The caveat is that his partners were Bobby Orr and Brad Park.  Similarly, you can imagine that Dave "Cementhead" Semenko's good number might have had something to do with his linemates Jari Kurri and Wayne Gretzky.  Some of Martin Brodeur's number were a byproduct of the Devils' defence.

On the other hand, every metric in existence tells you what you already knew about Dominik Hasek: He is the best goaltender ever since shots on goal have been recorded.  It also confirms that the 1997-8 Sabres really were a mediocre team with a GREAT goaltender.

It also may tell you something unexpected.  For instance, in the 1981 Canada Cup, Gil Perreault was hands down the best player in the tournament before he got injured and it wasn't close.  Not Trottier, Gretzky, Lafleur, Robinson, Potvin, KLM, Fetisov, Kasatonov, Salming, Steen, Kurri, etc.  Nobody.

[Kruppstahl]

Analytics is not rubbish; it can be applied to all sports, and relying on it in connection with lots of other things is much better than ignoring it entirely.

I will guarantee the Sabres would be a much better team right now if all organizational and coaching decisions were driven *solely* by analytics over the last 3 or 4 years.

 

 

 

 

 

[PerreaultForever]

Worst thing that can happen here is Granato makes this team respectable. If that happens, even by a glimmer, the narrative will be it's all on the coaching and next season we'll see all the same people and in the long run similar results. 

We were bad under Bylsma, we were bad under Housley, we were bad under Krueger.  

Unless you want to say "low event hockey" is our identity we have not had an identity since Ruff was here and even then we were iffy and soft (in the end). We have one moment here to completely rebuild around a new identity. If we just stall and take too long and just tweak and tinker hoping a new coach will fix everything we will lose that moment and suck for another decade as we lose core players one by one like ROR. 

[PerreaultForever]

By the way, football is not chess. It's checkers. 

[Randall Flagg]

16 minutes ago, PerreaultForever said:

By the way, football is not chess. It's checkers. 

What makes you inclined to emphasize this distinction?

[Curt]

3 hours ago, PerreaultForever said:

Worst thing that can happen here is Granato makes this team respectable. If that happens, even by a glimmer, the narrative will be it's all on the coaching and next season we'll see all the same people and in the long run similar results. 

We were bad under Bylsma, we were bad under Housley, we were bad under Krueger.  

Unless you want to say "low event hockey" is our identity we have not had an identity since Ruff was here and even then we were iffy and soft (in the end). We have one moment here to completely rebuild around a new identity. If we just stall and take too long and just tweak and tinker hoping a new coach will fix everything we will lose that moment and suck for another decade as we lose core players one by one like ROR. 

I don’t for sure this is the only way forward.  Maybe, maybe if most of the roster is turned over a couple of the better players (Jack? Sam? Risto?) from this team could be part of a good Sabres team.

However, I’m at the point where I will not be the least bit upset if the decision is to blow it up and move everyone out for a combination of players, prospects, and picks.  They have already dumped a lot of the front office, players might be next.  Rebuild the entire organization starting with a couple quality FO people who will decide on the coach who is aligned with their vision, and commit to keeping him in place for at least 3 years.  Then FO and HC work together to ID and acquire players who really fit that vision, not just kind of fit it.  The players need to be driving the vision as much as the FO or HC.

I would rather field a less talented team of players who all have the same mindset, and bring the new prospects up through that environment, than have a more talented team of players who kinda/sorta have the same mindset.

Just pretend that it’s an expansion team plus Skinner.  They could just embrace the whole narrative of being scrappy underdogs, and everyone thinks they are a joke, but they are going to show everyone different.  At least that is an identity that the right group of players can get behind.

Edited March 19, 2021 by Curt

[PerreaultForever]

3 hours ago, Randall Flagg said:

What makes you inclined to emphasize this distinction?

Cause people use that chess analogy for football based on the simple idea that offensive and defensive coaches try to out do each other in a strategy but that's not chess. Chess is much more complicated than football.