GDT: Sabres @ Blue Jackets - April 14, 2023 - 7:30PM, MSG-B📺WGR📻

[Thorner]

8 minutes ago, Taro T said:

Is what it is.

6 teams were within 2 wins of a DeLuca 0.500.  The stat says 4 of the 6 should've made the playoffs.  Only 2 of them actually did.  A stat that fails 1/3 of the time for anybody that has a record near the metric is IMHO trash.

NHL 0.600 has incorrectly predicted a team making the playoffs exactly once in the modern era and that happened under very unusual circumstances over 50 years ago.  You hit that mark, you make the playoffs.  Period.

You disregarded my good faith explanation for why I like it. The entire meat of my post. It wasn’t about being “right”, I was trying to explain to you why it had value.  I’m not doing this crap anymore. 

Yes. It’s a shite metric. We good?

Edited April 15, 2023 by Thorny

[TageMVP]

2 minutes ago, Thorny said:

I got you 

I think it’s because 3 v 3 is a sham. It’s what I always say, and the league devaluing it’s role in the tie breaker at least lends a small crumble of merit to my opinion here 

I can't stand the 3 on 3 either 

[Doohicksie]

2 minutes ago, sabresouth said:

I am not a fan of Greenway with TNT. He's not skilled enough. I think he drags that line down. 

It depends how they slot.  If Skinny-Mitts-Tuch is the first line, and Quinn-Cozens-JJ is the second line, then a line with Tage and Greenway would be the third line and get very favorable matchups.  Or if they are considered the second line, Q-C-P is the third line and they get the favorable matchups.  It's like Whack A Mole.... you can't keep them all down.

[JustOneParade]

We have a top line that potted nearly 120 goals this year. Why do we want to start screwing with that? There is enough talent on this roster beyond those guys that ‘balancing the scoring’ is unnecessary, if not foolish.

BTW, would Tage, Tuch, Skinner be the highest scoring line in the NHL this year? Or would that be McDavid and two traffic cones?

[Taro T]

4 minutes ago, Thorny said:

You disregarded my good faith explanation for why I like it. The entire meat of my post. It wasn’t about being “right”, I was trying to explain to you why it had value.  I’m not doing this crap anymore. 

And am not explaining this for you, but rather people reading our discussion.  You like it.  Fine.  That doesn't mean that it isn't garbage.  Am merely pointing out why that is the case for those that aren't as well versed in the topic.  

And remember, the reason this came up here is somebody asked what that metric was.  So, there are people that are unfamiliar with it.

Edited April 15, 2023 by Taro T

[Thorner]

3 minutes ago, TageMVP said:

Sure but that same league incentivizes  losing in overtime 

And created the overtime rules 

It should all be changed, very odd rules that no other league has 

Well, they aren’t incentivizing losing in OT: they are incentivizing *not being defeated in regulation*

you deserve a point because a team couldn’t defeat you within the true portion of the game 

[North Buffalo]

3-3 imo live is fun but yeh a bit gimmicky... that being said for novices like my wife who went with me to the Rags game she said she thoroughly enjoyed it and the shoot out... guess it depends on marketing...

[TageMVP]

8 minutes ago, Thorny said:

Well, they aren’t incentivizing losing in OT: they are incentivizing *not being defeated in regulation*

you deserve a point because a team couldn’t defeat you within the true portion of the game 

Yeah, I guess I can agree here 

Still think it could all use a nice overhaul, though 

[Thorner]

4 minutes ago, North Buffalo said:

3-3 imo live is fun but yeh a bit gimmicky... that being said for novices like my wife who went with me to the Rags game she said she thoroughly enjoyed it and the shoot out... guess it depends on marketing...

A lot of it, for my part, comes down to bias: i truly believe it’s not a very good reflection of the type of play one sees while watching the rest of the normal game, so while rooting for my team, I hate to see points come down to it. It IS* entertaining: when I’m watching other teams plays, even though I still don’t think it’s a good reflection, I don’t really care cause ya, not Buffalo. 

* the interesting thing though, is that “it’s really fun” has worn off for me over time, as well. As coaches have sunk their teeth into it, more often than not I feel nowadays it becomes a game of keep away, which is boring imo. Of course, my reading of how often these OTs devolve into that kinda contest might also be weighted on by my personal bias; it’s hard to say

[Thorner]

9 minutes ago, TageMVP said:

Yeah, I guess I can agree here 

Still think it could all use a nice overhaul, though 

I think all games should be worth 3 points. It doesn’t make logical sense to me that some games deal out a greater portion of total standings points. Some games literally mean more than others re: the portion of the standings they are contributing to. To me, that’s a flaw. 

granted, it’s obviously a known, intentional flaw: keep more squads in the race longer. It’s not changing 

Edited April 15, 2023 by Thorny

[Stoner]

2 hours ago, matter2003 said:

Imagine being a guy who scored 40 goals before you got there and then has a career high 81 points once you are gone and you have him as a scratch or playing on the 4th line for like 8 minutes a night...

You'd have to imagine it, because it didn't happen that way. Jeff tanked. Do you assign no blame to the player?

[Andrew Amerk]

11 minutes ago, Thorny said:

A lot of it, for my part, comes down to bias: i truly believe it’s not a very good reflection of the type of play one sees while watching the rest of the normal game, so while rooting for my team, I hate to see points come down to it. It IS* entertaining: when I’m watching other teams plays, even though I still don’t think it’s a good reflection, I don’t really care cause ya, not Buffalo. 

* the interesting thing though, is that “it’s really fun” has worn off for me over time, as well. As coaches have sunk their teeth into it, more often than not I feel nowadays it becomes a game of keep away, which is boring imo. Of course, my reading of how often these OTs devolve into that kinda contest might also be weighted on by my personal bias; it’s hard to say

It is only a game of keep away, when the other team allows it to be. 

It’s not a power play vs a penalty kill. It’s 3 on 3. If you don’t want the other team to play keep away, put your 3 guys on their 3 guys and get the puck back instead of waiting in a defensive shell for them to miss a shot. 

We all know how ineffective Alamo Mode. 

7 minutes ago, Thorny said:

I think all games should be worth 3 points. It doesn’t make logical sense to me that some games deal out a greater portion of total standings points. Some games literally mean more than others re: the portion of the standings they are contributing to. To me, that’s a flaw. 

granted, it’s obviously a known, intentional flaw: keep more squads in the race longer. It’s not changing 

I agree with this and have been saying this for years now. 

[MBD]

1 hour ago, Taro T said:

2 points short.  They didn't have the tiebreaker over anybody.

Wouldn't one point from an OT loss to a regulation win (like the Wash game) have given them 43 wins and the tie-breaker over FLA?

[Andrew Amerk]

4 minutes ago, PASabreFan said:

You'd have to imagine it, because it didn't happen that way. Jeff tanked. Do you assign no blame to the player?

This entire statement is ludicrous. 

[Thorner]

Just now, Andrew Amerk said:

It is only a game of keep away, when the other team allows it to be. 

It’s not a power play vs a penalty kill. It’s 3 on 3. If you don’t want the other team to play keep away, put your 3 guys on their 3 guys and get the puck back instead of waiting in a defensive shell for them to miss a shot. 

We all know how ineffective Alamo Mode. 

I agree with this and have been saying this for years now. 

I understand this but 3 v 3 facilitates the ability of an offensive team to successfully pull off that strategy, greater than 5 v 5 does, obviously indisputably 

[Randall Flagg]

Skinner - Mitts - Tuch
112 mins together 5v5
58% corsi, 11 goals for (1 goal every 10 mins), 4 goals allowed (1 goal against every 28 mins)
56% expected goals
60% scoring chances

Skinner - Thompson - Tuch
581 mins together 5v5
55% corsi, 42 goals for (1 goal every 13.8 minutes), 32 goals allowed (1 goal against every 18 minutes)
52% expected goals
53% scoring chances

Tage's data is much more robust, as it lasted basically the whole season, and these are very good numbers. But I'm intrigued by the idea of continuing to keep Casey there. What's stopping me is that I think we can find good chemistry for Casey on another line easier than we could for Tage. 

[Wyldnwoody44]

Tuch is the perfect power forward that we've been missing for years. Would be nice to add one more similar to him (maybe Greenway can sorta get there) 

[Andrew Amerk]

31 minutes ago, Thorny said:

I understand this but 3 v 3 facilitates the ability of an offensive team to successfully pull off that strategy, greater than 5 v 5 does, obviously indisputably 

I don’t agree, and I don’t think it’s indisputable. 

The highest scoring team in the league only won 5 of their 14 OT games. 

[Thorner]

10 minutes ago, Andrew Amerk said:

I don’t agree, and I don’t think it’s indisputable. 

The highest scoring team in the league only won 5 of their 14 OT games. 

It’s indisputable. How often do you see teams cycle the puck back outside the blue line willingly in regulation play? Or pass it back to the goalie? There’s more keep away in OT because there is more ice 

Not sure how your stat applies to the discussion 

Edited April 15, 2023 by Thorny

[Thorner]

The Sabres, in 20th place, are closer in points to 14th place than to 21st. 

[Thorner]

23 minutes ago, Thorny said:

It’s indisputable. How often do you see teams cycle the puck back outside the blue line willingly in regulation play? Or pass it back to the goalie? There’s more keep away in OT because there is more ice 

Not sure how your stat applies to the discussion 

It’s all here: (not paywalled)

https://theathletic.com/1672268/2021/02/08/inside-3-on-3-ot-strategies-and-stats-for-the-nhls-most-chaotic-game-state/?amp=1

“The way teams approach 3-on-3 in recent seasons has been very different. There’s a lot more strategy now as teams try to establish order. Barry Trotz, whose Islanders teams have thrived in the format, put it succinctly: “In 3-on-3 it’s about possession and decisions and if you don’t have it it’s position and patience.”“

“Ask any player or coach about the keys to 3-on-3 and one of the first aspects they mention is puck possession. Teams that win 3-on-3 games generally have more individual possessions (53 percent), more time with the puck in those possessions (54 percent) and more time spent in the attacking third (57 percent) compared to teams that lost.“

“One of the fundamental differences between overtimes now and that first game between Tampa Bay and Philadelphia is that players aren’t shy about holding on to the puck. Rather than dart up and down the ice, players are weaving through with patience, looking for breakdowns while attempting to wear down the opposition.”

- - -

Any format the Islanders are/were especially proficient in is abjectly terrible. 

 

Edited April 15, 2023 by Thorny

[jsb]

2 hours ago, Randall Flagg said:

Skinner - Mitts - Tuch
112 mins together 5v5
58% corsi, 11 goals for (1 goal every 10 mins), 4 goals allowed (1 goal against every 28 mins)
56% expected goals
60% scoring chances

Skinner - Thompson - Tuch
581 mins together 5v5
55% corsi, 42 goals for (1 goal every 13.8 minutes), 32 goals allowed (1 goal against every 18 minutes)
52% expected goals
53% scoring chances

Tage's data is much more robust, as it lasted basically the whole season, and these are very good numbers. But I'm intrigued by the idea of continuing to keep Casey there. What's stopping me is that I think we can find good chemistry for Casey on another line easier than we could for Tage. 

Disagree a bit with you. Skinner-Mitts-Tuch

                                         TNT-Cozens-Quinn

                                         JJP-Krebs-(Rousek)Whomever else wins this spot

                                         Girgs-Jost-Greenway

2 1A lines a 3rd line and a 4th line. This is all depending on Mitts continuing his upkeep. You've got speed on the 3rd line and you need guys on the 4th line that can play the PK and give you a few minutes of competency on the 4th. If you can't find guys that are ready to fill holes on the bottom 6, trade some of your assets for them. You still need some vets to fill those holes if at all possible. Olofsson's trade should fill either a bottom 6 role of a 5-6th Defensiveman. One of the GK's and a pick should be able to fill another role while the 2-3rd GK'r stays as Levi's backup. 

[triumph_communes]

Hockey is better with less than 5 players. There I said it. 

[Stoner]

6 hours ago, Andrew Amerk said:

This entire statement is ludicrous. 

Do you have anything to add?

Exactly what was keeping Jeff from scoring in his 15ish minutes a game?

Do you think he demonstrated professionalism to younger players?

[matter2003]

7 hours ago, PASabreFan said:

You'd have to imagine it, because it didn't happen that way. Jeff tanked. Do you assign no blame to the player?

That's not what happened. But nice try