Is it too soon to think we might actually be good?

[Thorner]

15 hours ago, GASabresIUFAN said:

If the Sabres are 12-7-3 after 22 games, can we then say we are actually good or at least very competitive.  

We had played 25 last time we thought things had changed so that number still a bit low for me

And we were better than that ^, too, by record 

[Thorner]

13 hours ago, GASabresIUFAN said:

I'd define good as in the conversation for a playoff spot or better.

I think teams between 75 and 85 points are mediocre. 

Not really, 75 points is about good for 28th, 85 for 20th or so. 

So in and around 24th place is more so below average than mediocre 

[Sabres Fan in NS]

They are playing well and as a unit.  That is all that matters at this point. 

I am very encouraged, but it's way to early to say how good these Sabres are.

As @nfreeman said, I am looking forward to the next game, which has not been the case in forever.

[PickaPecaPickles]

My big question going forward is whether or not the goal tending will hold up?  1) Will Anderson's age catch up to him in the second half of the season? 2) My observation on Tokarski's lone game was too often it seemed the puck bounced off him into a dangerous situation, and I think a better team capitalizes on those.  I definitely need to see more games from him before deciding.

While I think they will be competitive in most games with their style of play, against better teams and goaltenders, their net-minders will need to be equal to the task.

[Dr. Who]

I just don't believe there is enough talent there to be good. We are winning on effort. It's hard to sustain that level of intensity for 82 games and the teams that are comfortably playoff teams don't amp up until later in the season. I think the effort is reasonably something you can bring most days. I doubt the wins keep coming. All the same, it's nice not to be an embarrassing disaster on the ice. If you're half way through the season and still competitive, maybe you've caught lightning in a bottle. Too bad Granato wasn't the coach from day one last year. Might have saved the locker room.

[GASabresIUFAN]

6 hours ago, Thorny said:

Not really, 75 points is about good for 28th, 85 for 20th or so. 

So in and around 24th place is more so below average than mediocre 

If you are at or near hockey 500 your a mediocre team.  75 pts with some exception puts most teams at 25th or better in the NHL over the last decade.  To get to 75 pts you have to win 32-35 games.  While not even good, it's not terrible either.  Most years there is usually a cliff down to the truly bad teams. 

Once you get to around 90 pts you are a decent to good team.  However teams with 90 pts, while competing for a playoff spot, often finish 20-22nd in the overall league standings. 

[triumph_communes]

They compete. That’s good enough for last playoff berth. Y’all have been beat down too long. 
 

The early season winning streaks in years past were all lucky every game and riding on PP

[Cheektorado]

I didn't vote because I'm sticking to what I said before the season opener.

I want to see good coaching and players that bring it all game every game.  I'll hope for wins along the way.

Not so much about being good right now.  Just turn the corner and head in the right direction.

[SwampD]

I usually don’t make a judgement on a hockey team until around the middle of February.

[GoPuckYourself]

I didn't answer because although I love the way they're playing but at some point talent will have to surpass heart or at least have a mixture of both and we're just not there yet. The Echel trade and next draft should yield the talent we're looking for but until then I'll enjoy watching but know there will be plenty of games like tonight's Bruins game.

[Thorner]

17 hours ago, GASabresIUFAN said:

If you are at or near hockey 500 your a mediocre team.  75 pts with some exception puts most teams at 25th or better in the NHL over the last decade.  To get to 75 pts you have to win 32-35 games.  While not even good, it's not terrible either.  Most years there is usually a cliff down to the truly bad teams. 

Once you get to around 90 pts you are a decent to good team.  However teams with 90 pts, while competing for a playoff spot, often finish 20-22nd in the overall league standings. 

Nah. .500 points percentage isn’t average, it’s below average. We’ve had this discussion - it’s because of the loser point

Mediocre = average 

[LGR4GM]

23 hours ago, Thorny said:

We had played 25 last time we thought things had changed so that number still a bit low for me

And we were better than that ^, too, by record 

The difference right now is the underlying metrics and eye test both say this team is playing a better brand of hockey. 

[LGR4GM]

17 hours ago, GASabresIUFAN said:

If you are at or near hockey 500 your a mediocre team.  75 pts with some exception puts most teams at 25th or better in the NHL over the last decade.  To get to 75 pts you have to win 32-35 games.  While not even good, it's not terrible either.  Most years there is usually a cliff down to the truly bad teams. 

Once you get to around 90 pts you are a decent to good team.  However teams with 90 pts, while competing for a playoff spot, often finish 20-22nd in the overall league standings. 

I think 70-80 points is realistic for this team. If Eichel gets traded and we get anyone who can go in the lineup then maybe higher but that's my prediction. 

[Thorner]

11 minutes ago, LGR4GM said:

The difference right now is the underlying metrics and eye test both say this team is playing a better brand of hockey. 

True, but our metrics were very strong to start last season too 

I remember specifically it being something we pointed to once the quicker/pretty decent start faded away, but the metrics eventually tailed off, too 

It was around when we were sitting 4-4-2, the underlyings supported a strong result 

Edited October 23, 2021 by Thorny

[Thorner]

Here's a good article detailing the quick start by way of underlying metrics for the 2020/2021 season:

https://www.armchairgmsports.com/post/what-we-know-about-the-buffalo-sabres-through-2-weeks-2021-nhl-season

"The Sabres sit in 8th place at 5v5 CF%, 4th place in 5v5 xGF%, and have generated the 7th most high-danger scoring chances for at 5v5 this season. Add to that, they have given up the 7th fewest high-danger chances against and all the signs point to the Sabres being a good team this season (so far)."

[dudacek]

3 hours ago, Thorny said:

True, but our metrics were very strong to start last season too 

I remember specifically it being something we pointed to once the quicker/pretty decent start faded away, but the metrics eventually tailed off, too 

It was around when we were sitting 4-4-2, the underlyings supported a strong result 

Not your point, but this reminded me of how COVID completely savaged last year’s team.

They were so bad and lifeless, it was moot, but everyone forgets that is when the year turned.

We had one regulation loss in our last 6 before quarantine. We returned to 2 regulation wins in our next 25.

[pi2000]

4 hours ago, Thorny said:

Here's a good article detailing the quick start by way of underlying metrics for the 2020/2021 season:

https://www.armchairgmsports.com/post/what-we-know-about-the-buffalo-sabres-through-2-weeks-2021-nhl-season

"The Sabres sit in 8th place at 5v5 CF%, 4th place in 5v5 xGF%, and have generated the 7th most high-danger scoring chances for at 5v5 this season. Add to that, they have given up the 7th fewest high-danger chances against and all the signs point to the Sabres being a good team this season (so far)."

Unpopular opinion.... most of those numbers are because of the weak teams they've played.

[LGR4GM]

5 hours ago, Thorny said:

True, but our metrics were very strong to start last season too 

I remember specifically it being something we pointed to once the quicker/pretty decent start faded away, but the metrics eventually tailed off, too 

It was around when we were sitting 4-4-2, the underlyings supported a strong result 

They were?

The underlying results were mediocre with some big red flags on HD corsi for %.

1 hour ago, pi2000 said:

Unpopular opinion.... most of those numbers are because of the weak teams they've played.

Except they put up similar stats versus Boston. 

Also you have bury the weak teams you play. We spent a decade bemoaning Buffalo's inability to stack points against inferior opponents 

Edited October 23, 2021 by LGR4GM

[LGR4GM]

5 hours ago, Thorny said:

Here's a good article detailing the quick start by way of underlying metrics for the 2020/2021 season:

https://www.armchairgmsports.com/post/what-we-know-about-the-buffalo-sabres-through-2-weeks-2021-nhl-season

"The Sabres sit in 8th place at 5v5 CF%, 4th place in 5v5 xGF%, and have generated the 7th most high-danger scoring chances for at 5v5 this season. Add to that, they have given up the 7th fewest high-danger chances against and all the signs point to the Sabres being a good team this season (so far)."

I guess but I remember it differently. The HD corsi in particular was a problem constantly under Krueger. 

[nfreeman]

3 minutes ago, LGR4GM said:

The ***** they were. 

The underlying results were mediocre with some big red flags on HD corsi for %.

But the article @Thorny cited said:

Quote

"The Sabres sit in 8th place at 5v5 CF%, 4th place in 5v5 xGF%, and have generated the 7th most high-danger scoring chances for at 5v5 this season. Add to that, they have given up the 7th fewest high-danger chances against and all the signs point to the Sabres being a good team this season (so far)."

 

[LGR4GM]

Just now, nfreeman said:

But the article @Thorny cited said:

 

Can you read? I literally commented on it. 

2 minutes ago, LGR4GM said:

I guess but I remember it differently. The HD corsi in particular was a problem constantly under Krueger. 

 

Just now, nfreeman said:

But the article @Thorny cited said:

 

Already acknowledged it. 

[nucci]

5 minutes ago, nfreeman said:

 

 

 

5 hours ago, Thorny said:

Here's a good article detailing the quick start by way of underlying metrics for the 2020/2021 season:

https://www.armchairgmsports.com/post/what-we-know-about-the-buffalo-sabres-through-2-weeks-2021-nhl-season

"The Sabres sit in 8th place at 5v5 CF%, 4th place in 5v5 xGF%, and have generated the 7th most high-danger scoring chances for at 5v5 this season. Add to that, they have given up the 7th fewest high-danger chances against and all the signs point to the Sabres being a good team this season (so far)."

These new stats are driving me nuts. High-danger chances...it's like the new one in the NFL...air yards. Come on! Most goals at the end of the game wins

[Thorner]

Anyways, my link wasn't at all to say the good metrics won't continue this season. Merely, that like anything else, sample size is highly relevant. Even positive metrics need to bear themselves out over a larger time frame to prove themselves "sustainable". @dudacekbrought up an interesting point about Covid - it certainly may have played it's part in de-railing their start. That is to say, the high-quality efforts we've seen this season *can* contribute to a team with strong underlyings, even sans talent, but that incredibly high commitment to effort has to sustain itself indefinitely. They don't get "nights off" where Jack has himself a night on the PP and they win anyways (not that they won a lot before, but, you know what I mean). 

Perhaps, without the covid derailment, the team would have kept on chugging a little more, the effort still there. Maybe not. Maybe this year's team sees it's effort level sustained even when confronted by a road block. Point is, we'll have to see on that too. 

This team putting forth some 60 minute efforts has been great, and it's what we need to see. But the misnomer is that we haven't seen it before: we have. The trick this team needs to pull is to replicate it over the course of 82. Without the talent fallback, it's their only "out". 

A tall task, but I'm here for it. 

[nfreeman]

1 minute ago, Thorny said:

Anyways, my link wasn't at all to say the good metrics won't continue this season. Merely, that like anything else, sample size is highly relevant. Even positive metrics need to bear themselves out over a larger time frame to prove themselves "sustainable". @dudacekbrought up an interesting point about Covid - it certainly may have played it's part in de-railing their start. That is to say, the high-quality efforts we've seen this season *can* contribute to a team with strong underlyings, even sans talent, but that incredibly high commitment to effort has to sustain itself indefinitely. They don't get "nights off" where Jack has himself a night on the PP and they win anyways (not that they won a lot before, but, you know what I mean). 

Perhaps, without the covid derailment, the team would have kept on chugging a little more, the effort still there. Maybe not. Maybe this year's team sees it's effort level sustained even when confronted by a road block. Point is, we'll have to see on that too. 

This team putting forth some 60 minute efforts has been great, and it's what we need to see. But the misnomer is that we haven't seen it before: we have. The trick this team needs to pull is to replicate it over the course of 82. Without the talent fallback, it's their only "out". 

A tall task, but I'm here for it. 

I agree generally that good advanced metrics over a small sample size don't mean much, and that it's way too soon to be giddy about the Sabres, but I will say that their style of play looks much faster, in both ends of the rink, much closer to the net on offense and much more puck-possession-oriented than RK's did.

 

[Thorner]

1 minute ago, nfreeman said:

I agree generally that good advanced metrics over a small sample size don't mean much, and that it's way too soon to be giddy about the Sabres, but I will say that their style of play looks much faster, in both ends of the rink, much closer to the net on offense and much more puck-possession-oriented than RK's did.

 

Granato is a significantly better coach.