Goal Scoring. How Will Sabres Increase Number Of Goals Scored?

[JoeSchmoe]

1 hour ago, SwampD said:

DG never cut ice time when players sucked.

I feel like he did in the early days, but then stopped.

The same story goes for his concept of practicing hard. The first year or two, you heard about him pushing the 💩 out of them in practice. Last year, the story was the opposite. 

[French Collection]

21 minutes ago, JoeSchmoe said:

Average guy wins 50% of draws. ROR wins 55%.  Game is on the line.

The takeaway is only ROR cares in that situation and he'll win nearly every time because he's that much better than the average guy who somehow manages to win 50 out of 100 draws, as opposed to ROR's 55 out of 100.

I feel like this is the same kind of logic that keeps casinos in business.

When our best guy is not even 50% the odds are even worse.

[JoeSchmoe]

12 minutes ago, French Collection said:

When our best guy is not even 50% the odds are even worse.

That's true.

I think what Taro said is right too. Players get better with more strength and experience as well as learning more tactics. Kind of like how most MLB hitters don't even get into the league until well into their 20s. It just takes time to learn the skill.

I just wouldn't sell the farm to get better at this. Much wiser use of cap to focus on scoring rather than face-offs.

[GoPuckYourself]

8 hours ago, Doohickie said:

I disagree.  I think Lindy would have gotten this past year's roster to the playoffs as is.  That said, I won't be surprised if a rookie or two make the club, but I do expect some of holes created by outgoing players to be filled by established vets.

What he's saying is that it simply doesn't correlate to more wins.

Man I really hope you're right. 

[PerreaultForever]

3 hours ago, JoeSchmoe said:

Everything you're saying is predicated upon thinking there's a unicorn that gets you 100% face-off winning percentage at key times in a game.

ROR's career average is 55.7%.  Sending him out there in crunch time gives you a 5.7% better chance of winning the puck vs the league average guy. You'll take that chance every time, but realistically it's not that much.

EDIT- at key times, the other team is probably going to send out their top guy too. So if their guy is a career 53% guy, you'll win about 3 more faceoffs out of a 100 with ROR.

See you are buried in stats and not the reality of the game. A player is just like the team stats and when and at what time matters. You need the stats on ROR's win percentage in key moments, not all time. Beginning of a game, center ice ROR puts his stick down and whatever. End of a game he bears down and gives it his all and then what happens matters. 

Now maybe if you dug deep you'd find he's not that much better at that time idk for sure, but watching games over the years I see those top notch faceoff guys winning the big ones more often than not. Not everything in a game is equal and not every moment. This is where stats fall apart unless they are very detailed and broken down to all moments, which generally we don't have access to, although I assume teams have guys running them and keeping track. I assume. 

[Taro T]

2 hours ago, JoeSchmoe said:

Average guy wins 50% of draws. ROR wins 55%.  Game is on the line.

The takeaway is only ROR cares in that situation and he'll win nearly every time because he's that much better than the average guy who somehow manages to win 50 out of 100 draws, as opposed to ROR's 55 out of 100.

I feel like this is the same kind of logic that keeps casinos in business.

No.  Again, that 55% that O'Reilly has (if that is in fact his win %age; for sake of argument, will agree it is) is the aggregate of how he does on ALL face offs.  He doesn't give a rat's bippy whether he wins the game's opening faceoff or some random faceoff outside a blue line.  He is going to lose more of those than he's going to lose when he actually gives a care.   Can we at least agree that the poor faceo off guy going up against O'Reilly is going to try hard EVERY faceoff, so that he doesn't look stupid losing even more often than O'Reilly is going to try on one that doesn't matter?

Let's say there are 20 faceoffs total that O'Reilly takes.  (So we can easily get to that 55% - 11 out of 20)  He doesn't care about the 8 in the neutral zone and only wins 3 of those but loses the other 5.  (Though he doesn't care, he still comes close to winning 50% even though probably only 1 of those wins is clean.)  Well, of those other 12 faceoffs that ARE important, he's won 8 of them and only lost 4.  So, the next time he takes a key FO, we expect him to win 2 of of 3 of them rather than only 11 out of 20.

Also, of those 8 he wins, he's probably going to win more of them cleanly than he'd win cleanly on ones he doesn't care about.

Not sure how to explain the concept any clearer without writing a dissertation.   (And YES, ALL of these #'s are hypothetical.  But would wager that he's better on ones that matter than ones that don't.)

[dudacek]

53 minutes ago, Taro T said:

No.  Again, that 55% that O'Reilly has (if that is in fact his win %age; for sake of argument, will agree it is) is the aggregate of how he does on ALL face offs.  He doesn't give a rat's bippy whether he wins the game's opening faceoff or some random faceoff outside a blue line.  He is going to lose more of those than he's going to lose when he actually gives a care.   Can we at least agree that the poor faceo off guy going up against O'Reilly is going to try hard EVERY faceoff, so that he doesn't look stupid losing even more often than O'Reilly is going to try on one that doesn't matter?

Let's say there are 20 faceoffs total that O'Reilly takes.  (So we can easily get to that 55% - 11 out of 20)  He doesn't care about the 8 in the neutral zone and only wins 3 of those but loses the other 5.  (Though he doesn't care, he still comes close to winning 50% even though probably only 1 of those wins is clean.)  Well, of those other 12 faceoffs that ARE important, he's won 8 of them and only lost 4.  So, the next time he takes a key FO, we expect him to win 2 of of 3 of them rather than only 11 out of 20.

Also, of those 8 he wins, he's probably going to win more of them cleanly than he'd win cleanly on ones he doesn't care about.

Not sure how to explain the concept any clearer without writing a dissertation.   (And YES, ALL of these #'s are hypothetical.  But would wager that he's better on ones that matter than ones that don't.)

 

What you're saying is we really need to look at how centres do in high-danger faceoffs

 

[Taro T]

2 minutes ago, dudacek said:

 

What you're saying is we really need to look at how centres do in high-danger faceoffs

 

That's one way of looking at it.  More succinct, too.

[Big Guava]

By going back to playing offensive Hockey 

[French Collection]

Another take of mine on face off percentages is that a guy like ROR is 55% vs all centres, including all of the other top guys.

Our guys are 40 something percent vs the entire league. 
The odds are even worse when going up against a top guy, he would probably win 60%+ vs our below average guys.

[Sabres Fan in NS]

Shoot da puck !!

Am I doing this right, @Shoot da Puck ??

[Stoner]

Going to the net is a tired old crock of BS. It's not how the Sabres will score more goals. More talent, better coaching.

[dudacek]

30 minutes ago, PASabreFan said:

Going to the net is a tired old crock of BS. It's not how the Sabres will score more goals. More talent, better coaching.

Right on!

 

 

 

 

 

 

(As long as those more talented guys are coached to get to the net)

[bob_sauve28]

44 minutes ago, PASabreFan said:

Going to the net is a tired old crock of BS. It's not how the Sabres will score more goals. More talent, better coaching.

How many faceoffs have you won lately?

[French Collection]

Cozens has found his goal scoring touch again at the Worlds, 3 goals in 4 games.

Edited May 18 by French Collection

[bob_sauve28]

53 minutes ago, French Collection said:

Cozens has found his goal scoring touch again at the Worls, 3 goals in 4 games.

Don't worry, he will get run out of town in enough time to be a mature player on a Stanley Cup team scoring for them. 

[gilbert11]

On 5/15/2024 at 6:34 AM, Mustache of God said:

• Jack Quinn being healthy
• Tage being healthy
• Peterka's continued improvement
• Cozens finding his game
• Replace Girgensons, Robertson, Jost, Krebs, & VO with players who can chip in more consistently
• Power Play needs to do something, anything.

Yeah, prior to the Eichel trade, some of you guys were discussing prospects on other teams like Kempe, Drysdale and Byfield of the Kings, Zegras of Anaheim, etc.   So far, Krebs is no where close to the level of those guys.  It’s very fortunate that Tuch has been so good.

[Taro T]

18 minutes ago, gilbert11 said:

Yeah, prior to the Eichel trade, some of you guys were discussing prospects on other teams like Kempe, Drysdale and Byfield of the Kings, Zegras of Anaheim, etc.   So far, Krebs is no where close to the level of those guys.  It’s very fortunate that Tuch has been so good.

In fairness though to Adams, hadn't Vegas already traded all their good prospects away?  Always thought Tuch and the 1st were the big pieces coming back and the 2nd and Krebs were the well they could be good or might not be pieces.

[Scottysabres]

Creating space while driving the net or linemates drive to the net. Improved from the point shooting strategies.

[K-9]

I see a lot of strategic pulling of the goalie to create more 6 on 5 advantages. 

[pi2000]

keep tage off the PK so he doesn't break his hand and play 75% of the season injured

[bob_sauve28]

The top two lines are fine, if Benson takes Skinners place. The third line could be ok with Skinner, Greenway and..,Krebs/FA pick up 

 

No clue what fourth line will like 

[Believer]

If Ruff can unleash Cozens…

[Believer]

On 5/18/2024 at 8:35 AM, bob_sauve28 said:

Don't worry, he will get run out of town in enough time to be a mature player on a Stanley Cup team scoring for them. 

Come on, @bob_sauve28 This doesn’t sound like you.

Give Adams, Harrington, Lysowski, and the Boo Birds a chance to redeem themselves.

In Ruff We Trust.