Are the Sabres out of the running for the playoffs?

[LGR4GM]

1 minute ago, mjd1001 said:

Everyone seems to want to think a D-man would have made the difference.  I STILL see the D-zone coverage by the Forwards as the biggest issue this team has when allowing goals.  I am not a coach, never played anything close to high level hockey, but I see D-men, even the 3rd pair guys, doing "OK" with their coverage. I do NOT see forwards holding their position in the D-zone though. When a D-man goes to the boards, I often don't see a Forward drop down into coverage.  I see forwards vacting their spot to chase pucks when D-men are already there.   

The D-men aren't perfect, but it is often the forwards, the Forward most of us LIKE (Tage, Cozens, the young guys like Quinn and Petera) who are a bigger issue. A trade for a D-man isn't going to fix that. Experience will. Those guys getting older will. Those guys WANTING to watch video and put the mental work in will. But that will take time.

Jack Quinn is one of if not the best defensive forward on the team. Idk why he is constantly lumped in with JJP. 

The rest though I think is a major contributing factor. I think of Olofsson not getting the puck the other night and just streaking out of the zone as though he thought someone else would clean up his mess only to be late getting back into the play on a goal. It is indicative of how other forwards play defense on this team. 

[mjd1001]

Just now, LGR4GM said:

Jack Quinn is one of if not the best defensive forward on the team. Idk why he is constantly lumped in with JJP. 

The rest though I think is a major contributing factor. I think of Olofsson not getting the puck the other night and just streaking out of the zone as though he thought someone else would clean up his mess only to be late getting back into the play on a goal. It is indicative of how other forwards play defense on this team. 

He loses a lot of puck battles on the boards.  Again, I have not watched every single minute of every sabres games, but in the D-zone when I watch replays of goals allowed, a lot of times (A few goals a month it seems), I post on this board that the puck was on the boards with Quinn and a player from the other team, Quinn loses the battle and the puck goes out to the eventual goal scorer. Maybe his positioning is better than Peterka or Cozens, but Quinn does lose a lot of costly battles.

[LGR4GM]

Just now, mjd1001 said:

He loses a lot of puck battles on the boards.  Again, I have not watched every single minute of every sabres games, but in the D-zone when I watch replays of goals allowed, a lot of times (A few goals a month it seems), I post on this board that the puck was on the boards with Quinn and a player from the other team, Quinn loses the battle and the puck goes out to the eventual goal scorer. Maybe his positioning is better than Peterka or Cozens, but Quinn does lose a lot of costly battles.

I can think of 1 in the last month. Cozens, I can think of 3 in the last 2 games.

[Eleven]

11 minutes ago, LGR4GM said:

Jack Quinn is one of if not the best defensive forward on the team. Idk why he is constantly lumped in with JJP. 

The rest though I think is a major contributing factor. I think of Olofsson not getting the puck the other night and just streaking out of the zone as though he thought someone else would clean up his mess only to be late getting back into the play on a goal. It is indicative of how other forwards play defense on this team. 

 

7 minutes ago, LGR4GM said:

I can think of 1 in the last month. Cozens, I can think of 3 in the last 2 games.

 

[mjd1001]

10 minutes ago, LGR4GM said:

I can think of 1 in the last month. Cozens, I can think of 3 in the last 2 games.

Maybe he is getting better.  I posted in another thread about Cozens, that Cozens is the bigger issue.  Quinn, through the entire year, I have noticed a lot.  Again, maybe he is getting better, I 'casually' watch the Sabres games (probably see 50-60% of the entire game) but I do focus on the goals allowed.  Either way, as he gains experience and hopefully a little size, he will be better on loose pucks because, over the entire year, he has cost the Sabres goals. The low hanging fruit is Cozens and Tage though. If they could get even to 'average' in terms of D-zone coverage, that would be a big impact for the team.

[North Buffalo]

Ironically despite losing streak Sabres not out of it... gettin close but need a few wins now...

[K-9]

While not mathematically eliminated, they certainly appear to be emotionally eliminated at this point. I’ve always said the true test for a team is how they respond after a big loss. Can they get off the mat and get after it the next game or will they throw in the towel. Last night provided all the answers I need on that score. Just another weak, fragile team like the ones we’ve seen since the tank. 

[Randall Flagg]

4 hours ago, Night Train said:

10 goals isn't because a lack of a trade for 1-2 guys. That might have cut last nights GA to 8 or 9 instead of 10.  It's the team as a whole. Get real. 

It's also because a lack of depth made you play your top 3 D like it was game 7 for 3 consecutive months because you didn't care about adding depth, and now they can barely stand up out there. 

[sabremike]

47 minutes ago, Randall Flagg said:

It's also because a lack of depth made you play your top 3 D like it was game 7 for 3 consecutive months because you didn't care about adding depth, and now they can barely stand up out there. 

This point cannot be emphasized enough. They did this exact same thing with Jack riding him straight into the ground and apparently haven't learned anything.

[Pimlach]

1 hour ago, Randall Flagg said:

It's also because a lack of depth made you play your top 3 D like it was game 7 for 3 consecutive months because you didn't care about adding depth, and now they can barely stand up out there. 

The top 3 have an average age of 21.  Adams has got to get some experienced and talented veterans on that backline - it will make the top 3 better.  

 

[Taro T]

3 hours ago, K-9 said:

While not mathematically eliminated, they certainly appear to be emotionally eliminated at this point. I’ve always said the true test for a team is how they respond after a big loss. Can they get off the mat and get after it the next game or will they throw in the towel. Last night provided all the answers I need on that score. Just another weak, fragile team like the ones we’ve seen since the tank. 

Well, after getting spanked by the B's they came back with a very good game against the Bolts and with a little bit of puck luck could've beat McDavid and company too.

Let's see how Saturday goes before burying them.

[Thorner]

 

Tim and Friends got into some Buffalo stuff today. Needless to say, the 10-4 did stand out/ make news. Tim questioned the embarrassment of Comrie 

[Thorner]

5 hours ago, sabremike said:

This point cannot be emphasized enough. They did this exact same thing with Jack riding him straight into the ground and apparently haven't learned anything.

bUt hE hAd rOR aND kAne fOr hELp wHEn he wAS 20

[thewookie1]

39 minutes ago, Thorny said:

 

Tim and Friends got into some Buffalo stuff today. Needless to say, the 10-4 did stand out/ make news. Tim questioned the embarrassment of Comrie 

Win a few and we’ll look better. Panthers and Ottawa don’t deserve the playoffs anymore than our team.

[Thorner]

24 minutes ago, thewookie1 said:

Win a few and we’ll look better. Panthers and Ottawa don’t deserve the playoffs anymore than our team.

It’s a good point for how quickly the odds can change 

florida has a 1/3 shot and we are winning our game in hand from being tied with them 

[Porous Five Hole]

Anyone have a suggestion where I can find a wild card points projection needed to make the playoffs?
 

 I know a rule of thumb, but I’m wondering if any stats folks have a likely number based on each team’s current pts/games remaining/strength of schedule/etc.  

[Thorner]

On Marek today, his producer asked if it was fair to classify the Sabres season as “wildly successful.” He said there’s been wildly successful moments, and stretches, and wildly successful performances..but that making the playoffs would be what makes the season itself “wildly successful”. Says Sabres took “next step”, though. 

[Stoner]

1 hour ago, Thorny said:

On Marek today, his producer asked if it was fair to classify the Sabres season as “wildly successful.” He said there’s been wildly successful moments, and stretches, and wildly successful performances..but that making the playoffs would be what makes the season itself “wildly successful”. Says Sabres took “next step”, though. 

The journey of a thousand miles continues with one more step.

Leo Buscalgia

[dudacek]

On 3/10/2023 at 8:27 AM, Randall Flagg said:

It's also because a lack of depth made you play your top 3 D like it was game 7 for 3 consecutive months because you didn't care about adding depth, and now they can barely stand up out there. 

 

On 3/10/2023 at 9:23 AM, sabremike said:

This point cannot be emphasized enough. They did this exact same thing with Jack riding him straight into the ground and apparently haven't learned anything.

 

I think one of the Sabres major miscalculations this season was in the aptitude of Jacob Bryson.

the contract they gave him suggests they were expecting a lot more than the sub-Kale Clague like performance they got.

[Thorner]

Just now, PASabreFan said:

The journey of a thousand miles continues with one more step.

Leo Buscalgia

I know dudacek looks down on my posts because I attempt to set parameters in advance that I feel fairly define success, in advance so that I’m not tempted to fall into my own personal bias - I suppose it’s my mistake for attempting to *define* success: because if you set an actual mark, you can observably fall short. Whereas if you make success less definable, less tangible, less about results it’s easier to achieve goals, as the goals can shift. 

but I find the numbers useful. Especially in the macro, which I speak to a lot. There’s simply miles of precedent set for how much teams can and do usually improve, points wise, year over year. Of course there are always exceptions, none of my use of the numbers is rigid, but they illustrate how common it is to take huge point jumps, etc. To me looking at the point total this year actually matters - because if we finish with 80 points and people are touting “improvement” and “wildly successful” for a 5 point year-over-year gain...logically, then, what’s to say we won’t see the same people satisfied by the same improvement should it take place next year, another 5 points? Why not? We’ve already seen it. Then, 85 points next year becomes enough. Then why not 90 the following year? Quickly creating a scenario where a  guy was GM for 5 years and didn’t make the playoffs. No positive skew available there - an abject fail. 

They say “where you end up often depends on where you start”. If we start next season off a base of 87 points this year, hey, we improved 12 points year over year, another 12 and we make it.

so ya, how big a step we take this year, which, yes, I’d argue is largely statistically definable, really matters to me. We are still on a decent pace- but I’ve found the recent stretch worrisome 

[Taro T]

5 minutes ago, dudacek said:

 

 

I think one of the Sabres major miscalculations this season was in the aptitude of Jacob Bryson.

the contract they gave him suggests they were expecting a lot more than the sub-Kale Clague like performance they got.

Yes.  Expect they also expected at least 1 of Fitzgerald, Pilut, and Clague to be able to be a legit 6 as well.  No way they thought all 3 would be top 6 material, but at least 1 of them panning out was likely expected.

And one of them being legit top 6 material is why it would be really good to get one more guy they expect to be a 6 to be in the mix with Lyubushkin, Johnson, and Stillman for the bottom pairing with Jokiharju should a 4 be brought in.

[TRIP65]

On 12/7/2022 at 7:39 AM, mjd1001 said:

I voted yes because they are so far behind now (even though it is early) but I think the odds of them making it are actually better than most outsiders think.  Barring any major injuries, I expect this team to be a borderline top 10 team the rest of the year.  With that said, being a 'top 10' team the rest of the year probably still keeps them a few points out of the playoffs, so if I had to bet, I'd say they don't make it (but I think it will be close)

Won't be Top 10 unless they win 60% of their Home games left and keep winning on the road

[TRIP65]

On 12/7/2022 at 7:47 AM, mjd1001 said:

Becuase there are a lot of variables in there.  First, it is a big 'if' they win the next 3. It is possible, but from a pure statisticaly point of view, the odds of them getting  6 points in the next 3 games are less than 20% (purely statistcal). Then even if they do that, you are also talking about all the other teams that are fighting for the wild card that are ahead of the Sabres...You would still be behind or tied with the Islanders, Tampa, Rangers...providing they lost all their games...and you have to jump over Florida, Montreal, and Washington too.  

So even if the Sabres win the next 3, a big if...they are still be behind Pittsburgh...and likely behind 3-6 other teams for the wildcard. The teams above them in the next 5 days will not lose all their games because some of them are playing each other, guaranteeing that some of them will get at least some points.

The finish line is what you need to look at.  95-96 points is genrally what you need to make the playoffs (sometimes a few more, sometimes a few less) but get to a 95 point pace and then worry about the specifics in the last couple weeks of the year. Right now the Sabres are on about a 75 point pace. To get to 95 points, they have to start playing like a 104 point team the rest of the way.

Personally, I think this team has the potential to play as a 95-100 point team the rest of the way. It requires no major injuries and continued development, but I want to hope for that.  However, even if they do that, that only gets them to the 89-92 point total for the season.

EXACTLY, why Adams BLEW IT NOT getting top 6 defensive man to aide and replace a man hurt. Why he needed a Winger when TUCH went down that was scoring 30+ goals. Glad Greenway seems to be working but his Goal production wasn't going to help last week.

Last Week since Boston knocked us out of contention. If we were at least 60% maybe we would have a shot.

[DarthEbriate]

20 minutes ago, dudacek said:

I think one of the Sabres major miscalculations this season was in the aptitude of Jacob Bryson.

the contract they gave him suggests they were expecting a lot more than the sub-Kale Clague like performance they got.

Good point. Down the stretch last season Bryson played several solid (and high-profile games like TOR and VGK) with Dahlin and Samuelsson as his partner. It likely looks quite a bit different if he's playing solely with Hagg or Pysyk or Butcher during the March-to-end stretch.

[Taro T]

14 minutes ago, Thorny said:

I know dudacek looks down on my posts because I attempt to set parameters in advance that I feel fairly define success, in advance so that I’m not tempted to fall into my own personal bias - I suppose it’s my mistake for attempting to *define* success: because if you set an actual mark, you can observably fall short. Whereas if you make success less definable, less tangible, less about results it’s easier to achieve goals, as the goals can shift. 

but I find the numbers useful. Especially in the macro, which I speak to a lot. There’s simply miles of precedent set for how much teams can and do usually improve, points wise, year over year. Of course there are always exceptions, none of my use of the numbers is rigid, but they illustrate how common it is to take huge point jumps, etc. To me looking at the point total this year actually matters - because if we finish with 80 points and people are touting “improvement” and “wildly successful” for a 5 point year-over-year gain...logically, then, what’s to say we won’t see the same people satisfied by the same improvement should it take place next year, another 5 points? Why not? We’ve already seen it. Then, 85 points next year becomes enough. Then why not 90 the following year? Quickly creating a scenario where a  guy was GM for 5 years and didn’t make the playoffs. No positive skew available there - an abject fail. 

They say “where you end up often depends on where you start”. If we start next season off a base of 87 points this year, hey, we improved 12 points year over year, another 12 and we make it.

so ya, how big a step we take this year, which, yes, I’d argue is largely statistically definable, really matters to me. We are still on a decent pace- but I’ve found the recent stretch worrisome 

For whatever it is worth, you really do seem to take disagreement more harshly than it is intended from several posters.

That said, agree that all things being equal it will be far easier to get into the playoffs next year from a base roster than makes low 90's this year or even mid 80's than coming from a team ending the year at 82 or 83 points.

But, IF they come into next year with legit NHL goaltending, that alone should be worth at least 10 points in the standings.  Which puts the rest of the improvement to a 100+ point roster into a doable category simply from continued improvement from individual players as they grow 1 year closer to their primes provided they remain relatively healthy.

And regardless of whether they publicly admit it or not (and expect they won't but hope they do) the MINIMAL goal next year needs to be 100 points.  (Give themselves a point or 2 of a cushion to miss the goal and still get into the dance.)  Anything less is unacceptable.