Granato Head Coach Presser: Thursday 11am

[Stoner]

2 hours ago, PromoTheRobot said:

@PASabreFan Glad you agree it was a great answer.

It was. I'm sure it was only a slight scratch into his hockey acumen. I hope we hear more stuff like that. Coaches shouldn't dumb everything down for the media and fans.

[bob_sauve28]

1 hour ago, JohnC said:

What your metrics don't show is that he didn't have much practice time to work with the players he inherited. What your metrics don't show is that his team was stripped of many of his players in order to assess the young players, many of them brought up from the AHL. What your metrics don't capture is that he was working with an AHL level, or worse, caliber of goaltending

Regardless what his record was in his abbreviated stint behind the bench the eye test clearly shows that the players, young and old, demonstratively played better  with him at the helm. 

No coach is a miracle man. You work with the players that you are given. All you can ask your coach is to have them play with maximum effort and play up to their abilities. What more can you ask for?

Next year there will be some coaches who have more talented rosters whose teams underachieve. If he has a less talented team that overachieves and comes away with a poorer record compared to the more talented team that doesn't mean that he didn't do a better coaching job. 

 

Yup. He got the team beating teams even though we were on our sixth string goalie, so to me those are the metrics I looked at. 

[klos1963]

5 hours ago, Gatorman0519 said:

I agree. But if those players don’t want to be here there is nothing you can do which seems clearly the case. 

Nobody wants to be here. You make the case to them why they should want to.  We all seem to know we won't get equal value for Eichel, but somehow this trade is something many want. I just don't get it. We still haven't replaced ROR now we need 2 centers.

[Marvin]

21 minutes ago, klos1963 said:

Nobody wants to be here. You make the case to them why they should want to.  We all seem to know we won't get equal value for Eichel, but somehow this trade is something many want. I just don't get it. We still haven't replaced ROR now we need 2 centers.

I wouldn't say, "want."  I would say, "have resigned themselves to and have made the psychological adjustment to hoping for the best."

[pi2000]

2 hours ago, JohnC said:

What your metrics don't show is that he didn't have much practice time to work with the players he inherited. What your metrics don't show is that his team was stripped of many of his players in order to assess the young players, many of them brought up from the AHL. What your metrics don't capture is that he was working with an AHL level, or worse, caliber of goaltending

Regardless what his record was in his abbreviated stint behind the bench the eye test clearly shows that the players, young and old, demonstratively played better  with him at the helm. 

No coach is a miracle man. You work with the players that you are given. All you can ask your coach is to have them play with maximum effort and play up to their abilities. What more can you ask for?

Next year there will be some coaches who have more talented rosters whose teams underachieve. If he has a less talented team that overachieves and comes away with a poorer record compared to the more talented team that doesn't mean that he didn't do a better coaching job. 

 

All very good points.

The possession numbers regressed under Granato (compared to Krueger).    Even if you don't count the first two weeks after he took over, the numbers (corsi, high danger for/against, etc..) are still worse. 

The only thing that drastically improved was shooting %.   

Under Krueger they were easily league worst and actually one of the worst of all time in NHL history.     

Shortly after Granato took over, their shooting % went to top of the league for a good 3-4 week stretch.     

Is that sustainable?    IDK.... doubtful?

2 hours ago, PerreaultForever said:

This is definitely possible. I hope not, but it is possible.

However, if the only thing we are complaining about 2-3 years from now is Granato's poor line matching and in game decisions I think we will have progressed quite far. 

This season is a new DAY 1. Like it or not. One step at a time. Complain when we start taking them backwards (again). 

nah I'll complain now 🙂

DO BETTER

[klos1963]

20 minutes ago, Marvin, Sabres Fan said:

I wouldn't say, "want."  I would say, "have resigned themselves to and have made the psychological adjustment to hoping for the best."

or they're still years away from UFA and have no choice but to be there. Kinda the same thing , I guess.

[Doohicksie]

2 hours ago, pi2000 said:

DO BETTER

They will.

2 hours ago, klos1963 said:

or they're still years away from UFA and have no choice but to be there.

They might as well make the best of it and win a Cup while they're here, innit?

[gilbert11]

14 hours ago, PASabreFan said:

And that's all she wrote.

These guys are so well-spoken. It's refreshing after Murray and Botterill. Will it mean anything in the long-term? We'll see.

Back to you, Jim.

Murray was embarrassing at the draft and came across as a moron.  While every other GM was saying things like “The Blankety Blanks would like to thank the ‘host city’ for their hospitality.  With the nth pick in the 20xx NHL Draft, the Blankety Blanks are proud to select ‘player’ from the Bippity Bops of the So-and-so Hockey League”, Murray just says “Jack Eichel”.

[JohnC]

9 hours ago, pi2000 said:

All very good points.

The possession numbers regressed under Granato (compared to Krueger).    Even if you don't count the first two weeks after he took over, the numbers (corsi, high danger for/against, etc..) are still worse. 

The only thing that drastically improved was shooting %.   

Under Krueger they were easily league worst and actually one of the worst of all time in NHL history.     

Shortly after Granato took over, their shooting % went to top of the league for a good 3-4 week stretch.     

Is that sustainable?    IDK.... doubtful?

 

One of the main reasons that I am not so wedded to the statistical analysis in evaluating players as others are is that they usually are examined without giving the context. As an example on a good team such as Tampa they have top caliber players throughout all their lines. A third or fourth line player there could be a first or second line player for us. Whereas in Buffalo which has a dearth of talent you have third line players very often playing on the second and even the first line. Overlay that distorted line assignment with suffocating goaltending then the stats are certainly affected. 

I'm not saying anything that is very illuminating when I say Buffalo lacks talent compared to the better teams. That's as obvious as saying that at night it is dark. What the Sabres need is an infusion of players in order to allow for the players to play the lines and roles they are meant to play. When that happens the stats will follow and be more meaningful. 

One other point regarding Granato's stat line compared to Krueger's. As you mentioned in the abbreviated season when he took over he wasn't afforded much practice time. And because there were so few games left in the season when he took over there wasn't a large enough sample size to get a fair analysis. In this situation you should put more credence into the eye test than the hard numbers. 

Related to what I have said it seems as if it is a foregone conclusion that Jack, Samson and maybe Risto are going to be dealt. Although the players coming back won't be as good as our top two going out there needs to be enough players coming back in those trades and free agency to broaden our talent base. 

 

Edited July 2, 2021 by JohnC

[LGR4GM]

2 hours ago, JohnC said:

One of the main reasons that I am not so wedded to the statistical analysis in evaluating players as others are is that they usually are examined without giving the context. As an example on a good team such as Tampa they have top caliber players throughout all their lines. A third or fourth line player there could be a first or second line player for us. Whereas in Buffalo which has a dearth of talent you have third line players very often playing on the second and even the first line. Overlay that distorted line assignment with suffocating goaltending then the stats are certainly affected. 

I'm not saying anything that is very illuminating when I say Buffalo lacks talent compared to the better teams. That's as obvious as saying that at night it is dark. What the Sabres need is an infusion of players in order to allow for the players to play the lines and roles they are meant to play. When that happens the stats will follow and be more meaningful. 

One other point regarding Granato's stat line compared to Krueger's. As you mentioned in the abbreviated season when he took over he wasn't afforded much practice time. And because there were so few games left in the season when he took over there wasn't a large enough sample size to get a fair analysis. In this situation you should put more credence into the eye test than the hard numbers. 

Related to what I have said it seems as if it is a foregone conclusion that Jack, Samson and maybe Risto are going to be dealt. Although the players coming back won't be as good as our top two going out there needs to be enough players coming back in those trades and free agency to broaden our talent base. 

 

Sure but if you are transitioning with control and generating hd shot attempts or shot assists it will occur on whatever line you are on. That's why you look at players in isolation and consider them because no, all those 3rd and 4th line guys on Tampa would not succeed on higher lines elsewhere and it is important to know the difference. Stats always need context just like the eye test should always be backed up with stats. 

[JohnC]

2 minutes ago, LGR4GM said:

Sure but if you are transitioning with control and generating hd shot attempts or shot assists it will occur on whatever line you are on. That's why you look at players in isolation and consider them because no, all those 3rd and 4th line guys on Tampa would not succeed on higher lines elsewhere and it is important to know the difference. Stats always need context just like the eye test should always be backed up with stats. 

I'm aware with what you are saying but I'm not as captured by the stat line as many others are. It's not unusual that players whose talents are not fully utilized on one team can have much better numbers when playing with another team where there is a better fit for their particular skills. I'm not disagreeing with your view so much as giving more weight to the context than you appear to give in your analysis. 

[LGR4GM]

Just now, JohnC said:

I'm aware with what you are saying but I'm not as captured by the stat line as many others are. It's not unusual that players whose talents are not fully utilized on one team can have much better numbers when playing with another team where there is a better fit for their particular skills. I'm not disagreeing with your view so much as giving more weight to the context than you appear to give in your analysis. 

What I am telling you is that underlying stats on a player will still be better relative to his team. Let's take Kent Johnson as a prospect example. He scored 27points in 26 NCAA games. If you watch him he jumps out with his stickhandling and dangles... but if you actually place his stats in context and go deeper, he is a flawed player with a bunch of flags. Only 4 primary assists, not great at shot assists, bad at high danger passing, etc... so the stats throw off red flags. Now we put it in context, he was on one of the best NCAA teams last year and played with one of the best NCAA centers. Conclusion, the stats do reflect what the player is. 

Sure, bad teams deflate players numbers but that is also on the player. That's why you look at numbers in context so for example Reinhart's assists. Why didn't he have more? Well he was forced into top line minutes and Olofsson is not good at 5v5. 

You're also ignoring the opposite effect. A good team can pull up a bad players stats. 

[JohnC]

10 minutes ago, LGR4GM said:

What I am telling you is that underlying stats on a player will still be better relative to his team. Let's take Kent Johnson as a prospect example. He scored 27points in 26 NCAA games. If you watch him he jumps out with his stickhandling and dangles... but if you actually place his stats in context and go deeper, he is a flawed player with a bunch of flags. Only 4 primary assists, not great at shot assists, bad at high danger passing, etc... so the stats throw off red flags. Now we put it in context, he was on one of the best NCAA teams last year and played with one of the best NCAA centers. Conclusion, the stats do reflect what the player is. 

Sure, bad teams deflate players numbers but that is also on the player. That's why you look at numbers in context so for example Reinhart's assists. Why didn't he have more? Well he was forced into top line minutes and Olofsson is not good at 5v5. 

You're also ignoring the opposite effect. A good team can pull up a bad players stats. 

Let's use your Kent Johnson example as a prospect and your statistical analysis of him. I'm not as enamored with the numbers as you are for an 18 or 19 yr old player as I am with his tools. The issue for me becomes are the numbers associated with him as a late teenager or early 20s going to tell you what he is going to be as a player three to five years down the road. I understand your belief in the stats. I'm just not as beholden to them as you and others are. They certainly are important analytical tools but not as determinative as some believe it to be for such young players who have a lot of physical and emotional maturity growth ahead of them. 

What it comes down to we that you give it more weight than I do. 

[LGR4GM]

I shouldn't say you are also ignoring but maybe discounting that the impact on stats can work in reverse so a mediocre player on Tampa would look like garbage on Buffalo because they aren't getting their stats inflated. Kent Johnson, I bet he has easily half those 2nd assists without Beniers cleaning up the mess. 

[Dr. Who]

7 hours ago, gilbert11 said:

Murray was embarrassing at the draft and came across as a moron.  While every other GM was saying things like “The Blankety Blanks would like to thank the ‘host city’ for their hospitality.  With the nth pick in the 20xx NHL Draft, the Blankety Blanks are proud to select ‘player’ from the Bippity Bops of the So-and-so Hockey League”, Murray just says “Jack Eichel”.

To be honest, I kinda liked the laconic approach. If everyone did that, it would be dull and lack ceremony. As rhetorical contrast, it was acerbic and wry counterpoint. If the team had turned out well, most everyone would find it amusing.

[LGR4GM]

1 minute ago, JohnC said:

Let's use your Kent Johnson example as a prospect and your statistical analysis of him. I'm not as enamored with the numbers as you are for an 18 or 19 yr old player as I am with his tools. The issue for me becomes are the numbers associated with him as a late teenager or early 20s going to tell you what he is going to be as a player three to five years down the road. I understand your belief in the stats. I'm just not as beholden to them as you and others are. They certainly are important analytical tools but not as determinative as some believe it to be for such young players who have a lot of physical and emotional maturity growth ahead of them. 

What it comes down to we that you give it more weight than I do. 

Yes, if you don't score primary and 5v5 points at juniors, you will not at higher levels. 

[LGR4GM]

5 minutes ago, JohnC said:

Let's use your Kent Johnson example as a prospect and your statistical analysis of him. I'm not as enamored with the numbers as you are for an 18 or 19 yr old player as I am with his tools. The issue for me becomes are the numbers associated with him as a late teenager or early 20s going to tell you what he is going to be as a player three to five years down the road. I understand your belief in the stats. I'm just not as beholden to them as you and others are. They certainly are important analytical tools but not as determinative as some believe it to be for such young players who have a lot of physical and emotional maturity growth ahead of them. 

What it comes down to we that you give it more weight than I do. 

Alright, let's say you have a player like Kent Johnson who has all the tools. Do you value him more than a player like Beniers who has less tools but is exceedingly efficient at applying them? Kent Johnson after all produced more points than Matthew Beniers. 

[JohnC]

Just now, LGR4GM said:

Alright, let's say you have a player like Kent Johnson who has all the tools. Do you value him more than a player like Beniers who has less tools but is exceedingly efficient at applying them? Kent Johnson after all produced more points than Matthew Beniers. 

No I would not value Kent Johnson more than Beniers. Without question I would take Beniers ahead of Johnson. I would make my judgment about each of the players not only on the numbers but also how they play. I would look at the totality of their game.  

[LGR4GM]

Just now, JohnC said:

No I would not value Kent Johnson more than Beniers. Without question I would take Beniers ahead of Johnson. I would make my judgment about each of the players not only on the numbers but also how they play. I would look at the totality of their game.  

That's what I do. There's this misconception that it's just who has the best numbers but there's a lot more going into it. 

Numbers lead you to Seth Jarvis but his play keeps you there. Numbers lead you to Tristen Robins but his play keeps you there.

In 2021, numbers lead you to Ville Kouivnen but his play keeps you there. Olen Zellweger is another example.

The only real difference is that if the underlying numbers are not there at all, Simon Edvindson, you are sliding on my board unless there's a mountain of context as to why. Autu Raty has some context as to why. You either produce at the lower levels or you don't and if you don't you will not produce in the NHL. 

[JohnC]

2 minutes ago, LGR4GM said:

That's what I do. There's this misconception that it's just who has the best numbers but there's a lot more going into it. 

Numbers lead you to Seth Jarvis but his play keeps you there. Numbers lead you to Tristen Robins but his play keeps you there.

In 2021, numbers lead you to Ville Kouivnen but his play keeps you there. Olen Zellweger is another example.

We are more in accord than discord. 

[LGR4GM]

If you missed the presser and want to watch it:

 

[dudacek]

1 hour ago, LGR4GM said:

Yes, if you don't score primary and 5v5 points at juniors, you will not at higher levels. 

Have you done a deep dive into Johnson’s numbers the previous year in Trail?

He had 41 goals and 101 points in 52 games - 10 goals and 30 points more than the next highest scorer in the league.

Alex Newhook led the league the previous year with almost identical numbers: 38 goals and 102 points. Newhook was 9 months older.

[LGR4GM]

1 hour ago, dudacek said:

Have you done a deep dive into Johnson’s numbers the previous year in Trail?

He had 41 goals and 101 points in 52 games - 10 goals and 30 points more than the next highest scorer in the league.

Alex Newhook led the league the previous year with almost identical numbers: 38 goals and 102 points. Newhook was 9 months older.

I have (as much as I could) and I love Newhook. 

Johnson is not as good as Newhook. 

Edited July 2, 2021 by LGR4GM

[dudacek]

51 minutes ago, LGR4GM said:

I have (as much as I could) and I love Newhook. 

Johnson is not as good as Newhook. 

How did the primaries and ES look?

Id imagine the former was quite good, given how far ahead he was of his next teammate in total points.

[Weave]

4 hours ago, Dr. Who said:

To be honest, I kinda liked the laconic approach. If everyone did that, it would be dull and lack ceremony. As rhetorical contrast, it was acerbic and wry counterpoint. If the team had turned out well, most everyone would find it amusing.

Everyone LOVED his NFG approach right up until the team continued to suck.  At the draft his approavh was cheered on. Now suddenly it was embarrassing.  Noone expressed embarrassment at the time.  Revisionist history.