GDT: Blues at Sabres, April 14 7:00 p.m.

[Stoner]

1 hour ago, JohnC said:

When watching this game it becomes evident that difference between winning and losing is not great. As others have stated the score didn't reflect how this game was played. Ultimately, the quality chances we had were not converted; the fewer quality chances they had were converted. The Blues are a well rounded veteran team. Even when the tide was working against them they continued to play their game. 

Sometimes I think it's all random — the nature of a sport played on ice with big bodies in the way, a sliding vulcanized rubber disk, boards and glass keeping the puck in play, goal posts, and the my God, the Gods, the Hockey Gods. It's basically why I reject fancy stats and analytics. So much about the sport is not discrete, measurable.

It's the beauty of it. There's no E-4 or QB rating, nor should there be.

[Pimlach]

1 hour ago, PASabreFan said:

Sometimes I think it's all random — the nature of a sport played on ice with big bodies in the way, a sliding vulcanized rubber disk, boards and glass keeping the puck in play, goal posts, and the my God, the Gods, the Hockey Gods. It's basically why I reject fancy stats and analytics. So much about the sport is not discrete, measurable.

It's the beauty of it. There's no E-4 or QB rating, nor should there be.

Don't reject fancy stats, but don't live by them either.  

 

Talented players are always the key, but players that hate losing and play their role is a better way to go then than talented players that don't care as much. 

The Blues have few weaknesses.  When their goalie gets hot they can very tough to beat.  

Edited April 15, 2022 by Pimlach

[Marvin]

20 minutes ago, Pimlach said:

Talented players is always the key, but players that hate losing and play their role is better way to go then than talented players that don't care as much. 

Old hockey cliche, albeit told with nuance: all other things being equal, a little extra will beats a little extra skill.

[That Aud Smell]

1 hour ago, PASabreFan said:

Sometimes I think it's all random — the nature of a sport played on ice with big bodies in the way, a sliding vulcanized rubber disk, boards and glass keeping the puck in play, goal posts, and the my God, the Gods, the Hockey Gods. It's basically why I reject fancy stats and analytics. So much about the sport is not discrete, measurable.

It's the beauty of it. There's no E-4 or QB rating, nor should there be.

Things just aren’t binary, PAngloss.

[Crusader1969]

10 hours ago, PerreaultForever said:

Eh, what now? That was a colossal pile of defensive errors. Some of them made by the new kid. Horrible horrible hockey game . If that's the best we can do we are a very long way from truly competing (but I think we can do better, and will). 

I have no idea what you were watching, but it was not the same game as me. 

Our if curiosity, do you drink when watching the game ?  Sure you were watching last nights game ?? 

[dudacek]

2 hours ago, Weave said:

Alot of those missed nets were due to sticks and legs in the way.  StL did a fantastic job of clogging shooting lanes and rushing the shooter, something our team hasn’t quite developed yet.

You’re not wrong, particularly in comparison to the Leafs.
Yet they also gave up a ridiculous amount of Grade A scoring chances. A ridiculous amount.

1 hour ago, PASabreFan said:

Sometimes I think it's all random — the nature of a sport played on ice with big bodies in the way, a sliding vulcanized rubber disk, boards and glass keeping the puck in play, goal posts, and the my God, the Gods, the Hockey Gods. It's basically why I reject fancy stats and analytics. So much about the sport is not discrete, measurable.

It's the beauty of it. There's no E-4 or QB rating, nor should there be.

The 1st 2 Tarasenko goals were well-earned, where the Blues created glorious scoring chances and buried them. I’m not sure how many other Grade A ES chances they had? 6? 8?

To my eye we had significantly more. Butcher off the post, Olofsson all alone between the legs and wide, Krebs over the net on a breakaway, Asplund on a breakaway, Thompson twice from between the circles, Skinner poking it through beaten by the whistle, Tuch multiple times…

It felt like they went 2 for 8 and we went 1 for 15 on glorious chances where the offence beat the defence.

They scored 2 PP goals on penalties that aren’t always called penalties, a lucky bounce off Tuch’s skate and an empty netter. We got the Asplund deflection.

So, 15–8 Buffalo on even strength chance generation

2-1 St. Louis on execution

And 4-1 St. Louis on “hockey randomness.”

Not making excuses, it’s just hockey.

There’s no guarantee you can control it, you can only tilt the odds in your favour. It’s a chaotic, unpredictable game.

Edited April 15, 2022 by dudacek

[Doohicksie]

44 minutes ago, dudacek said:

You’re not wrong, particularly in comparison to the Leafs.
Yet they also gave up a ridiculous amount of Grade A scoring chances. A ridiculous amount.

The 1st 2 Tarasenko goals were well-earned, where the Blues created glorious scoring chances and buried them. I’m not sure how many other Grade A ES chances they had? 6? 8?

To my eye we had significantly more. Butcher off the post, Olofsson all alone between the legs and wide, Krebs over the net on a breakaway, Asplund on a breakaway, Thompson twice from between the circles, Skinner poking it through beaten by the whistle, Tuch multiple times…

It felt like they went 2 for 8 and we went 1 for 15 on glorious chances where the offence beat the defence.

They scored 2 PP goals on penalties that aren’t always called penalties, a lucky bounce off Tuch’s skate and an empty netter. We got the Asplund deflection.

So, 15–8 Buffalo on even strength chance generation

2-1 St. Louis on execution

And 4-1 St. Louis on “hockey randomness.”

Not making excuses, it’s just hockey.

There’s no guarantee you can control it, you can only tilt the odds in your favour. It’s a chaotic, unpredictable game.

I think that sums up nicely how I saw the game too.  Sometimes the Hockey Gods frown upon you.  It doesn't mean you played a bad game, just that you didn't get the puck luck.  Play them again tonight I think it's just as likely the Sabres win.

[That Aud Smell]

1 hour ago, That Aud Smell said:

Things just aren’t binary, PAngloss.

1 hour ago, dudacek said:

You’re not wrong, particularly in comparison to the Leafs.
Yet they also gave up a ridiculous amount of Grade A scoring chances. A ridiculous amount.

<>

There’s no guarantee you can control it, you can only tilt the odds in your favour. It’s a chaotic, unpredictable game.

[JohnC]

3 hours ago, PASabreFan said:

Sometimes I think it's all random — the nature of a sport played on ice with big bodies in the way, a sliding vulcanized rubber disk, boards and glass keeping the puck in play, goal posts, and the my God, the Gods, the Hockey Gods. It's basically why I reject fancy stats and analytics. So much about the sport is not discrete, measurable.

It's the beauty of it. There's no E-4 or QB rating, nor should there be.

I have a different perspective than you presented in your post. We all can agree that there is a fluky aspect to this sport that can't always being measured,  such as deflections, being screened and unpredictable bounces off the boards etc. But in the NHL where the season is long and grinding, as with the NBA, MLB there are team weaknesses that in the long run can't be hidden. In the short run a weakness in not always evident. However, in the long run a weakness gets exposed and exploited. In baseball if you don't have good starting or relief pitching that vulnerability will manifest itself. In basketball you can get away with not having a good defense but in a playoff setting it will hurt your chances to win a series. 

Before the Sabres even started the season most of us were aware that they were deficient at the position that is most influential in determining success. I believe that the organization was aware of it but had other priorities to address in the rebuild. Yesterday's game against the Blues was an example that one of our main weaknesses couldn't be hidden and was exploited by the opposition to garner the win.  Yesterday's loss was not a demonstration of the fluky nature of the sport as it was an exposing and exploitation of a glaring weakness. 

[PerreaultForever]

2 hours ago, Crusader1969 said:

Our if curiosity, do you drink when watching the game ?  Sure you were watching last nights game ?? 

Out of curiosity have you completely forgotten what a good hockey team is? Perhaps I've just raised the bar a little. Think about it. 

A team that scores a few more goals than before isn't good enough for me, it's time for a team that knows how to win. 

[SwampD]

2 hours ago, The Ghost of Yuri said:

I think that sums up nicely how I saw the game too.  Sometimes the Hockey Gods frown upon you.  It doesn't mean you played a bad game, just that you didn't get the puck luck.  Play them again tonight I think it's just as likely the Sabres win.

I just have problem with the notion that, “they played a great game but just didn’t have puck luck, and that was the difference.”

I see it a little differently. I think they played a good game, but were at the very edge of their abilities and weren’t able to keep up with their opponent in order to control the puck that last little bit needed to get that “puck luck.”

Edited April 15, 2022 by SwampD

[SwampD]

19 hours ago, PASabreFan said:

I just find that so scummy. Calling a rookie by name. Not calling it the first time then... what?... making an emotional call? The shout to Power clearly helped the Blue decide to Toratoratora.

I hate it. Be professional.

Welcome to the bigs, kid.

I wanted to get back to this because you made me go off on a tangent about refs in general as opposed to what we’ve seen in the NHL this year.

They have made a point of paying attention to cross checking this year. I watch a lot of nonSabres games, as well. This year, you hear the refs shouting a lot at players, both in front of the net and in the corners, trying to keep the play alive as well as giving warnings about cross checking.

The ref could have given Power a penalty on the first one. They aren’t doing that this year. As soon as he did it a second time, as lame as it was, I knew he was getting a penalty and had no problem with it.

Edited April 15, 2022 by SwampD

[Doohicksie]

1 hour ago, SwampD said:

I just have problem with the notion that, “they played a great game but just didn’t have puck luck, and that was the difference.”

I see it a little differently. I think they played a good game, but were at the very edge of their abilities and weren’t able to keep up with their opponent in order to control the puck that last little bit needed to get that “puck luck.”

[SwampD]

25 minutes ago, The Ghost of Yuri said:

Hmm,…

… what don’tcha get?

[matter2003]

8 hours ago, Drag0nDan said:

Worked us on the PP, and they scored their point blank chances.  We either shot them into pads or just flat out missed the net.

Also had a lot of shots deflected as well...

17 hours ago, PerreaultForever said:

Eh, what now? That was a colossal pile of defensive errors. Some of them made by the new kid. Horrible horrible hockey game . If that's the best we can do we are a very long way from truly competing (but I think we can do better, and will). 

I have no idea what you were watching, but it was not the same game as me. 

Uh, I saw us with 3 breakaways and numerous other grade A scoring chances in front of the net.  Defensively we could have been better but there is no way you can be serious in saying that we didn't have the better scoring chances, more scoring chances and could have easily scored 3 more goals to make it 5-5.  If you are, you should probably go rewatch the game, because you didn't see it well enough.

Advanced Metrics backs this up as the Sabres had a higher Expected Goals For than the Blues did for the game. 3.28 to 3.12 I believe

Edited April 15, 2022 by matter2003