Judging the off-season: the big picture

[dudacek]

38 minutes ago, That Aud Smell said:

your posts have an enjoyable early 2000s blog vibe to them.

I so desperately want the team to justify jumping on his bandwagon.

i want Malenstyn slamming guys through the end boards, UPL stoning Marner on a breakaway up a goal in the 3rd period, Krebs sticking Marchand after the whistle, Lindy up on the boards screaming at Jon Cooper, and Quinn sniping one from the left circle to tie things up with the goalie pulled.

A year ago Vancouver fandom around here was a morgue, an absolute suicide watch. It was impossible not to be jealous as the team turned the fan base around.

I want to be that guy. I just want the Sabres to be fun.

 

[Thorner]

[Pimlach]

2 hours ago, Brawndo said:

The Red Wings, with Seider, Raymond and Berggren needing new deals, most likely move the Sabres to 7th on the list. 
 

Add not being able to convince the owner to spend additional money towards building a playoff team to the list of complaints about Adams. 
 

Plus it should be changed from the 3 Es to the 2 Es because they sure as hell haven’t been effective. 

They have been effective at losing.  Effective at fan alienation.  Effective at being a destination that no one wants to go to.   Effective at offering jobs to unqualified people. 

They have done all these things with pretty good efficiency too. 

[Pimlach]

3 hours ago, Pimlach said:

Well looking at the moves this way is quite interesting. 

Mitts > McLeod ;   but at least McLeod brings top end speed and faceoffs and playoff experience

Skinner > Zucker as a pure goal scorer;  but at least you can say Zucker is a better 2 way player and more versatile and brings playoff experience

Lafferty > Okposso;   Lafferty brings more of what we need, at this stage of his career Kyle is essentially done

Girgs - Malenstyn;    this is a wait and see move, they must really like Malenstyn,  

Abe-Kubel > Olofsson;   Olofsson is the more skilled scorer but Abe-Kubel brings much more of what we need 

Byram > E Johnson (and R Johnson and Bryson); not much to discuss here

Riemer > Comrie ;  He better be 

Ruff > Granato;  Granato and his staff were badly exposed last season and every coach in the league knew how to play Buffalo by the end of the 22-23 season

Add this up and you can see a step forward assuming:  (1) Byram is actually good; (2) Zucker and McLeod can bring some offense along with their experience; and (3) the 4th liners click and take some starch out of the opponent.  This alone is not a lot.  

Ruff is a bigger key.  Improving the PP, improving the PK, improving home ice readiness and record, win by locking down on leads.  All things Ruff can do, and things that he needs to bring back to Buffalo. 

Still, given all this, the roster changes are not that deep and a playoff season will more likely hinge on strong seasons from UPL, Thompson, Dahlin, Tuch, Cozens, and Power, along with continued growth of JJP, Quinn, and Benson.   

Ok @Thorny, which part do you disagree with (the most)?  

[Thorner]

19 minutes ago, Pimlach said:

Ok @Thorny, which part do you disagree with (the most)?  

Apologies, meant to respond earlier 

- I think we need to see this roster approach matching last year’s roster before contemplating the step forward you mentioned. Byram wasn’t just “not the good Byram” he was probably our worst player after acquisition: he certainly was our worst defensively. And the cost was the player performing as our best forward at the time of the deal. The roster being improved over last year imo misses a substantial stair on the way up.

Supplemtenting the bottom 6 and running back the rest is what established good teams do.

I do agree on Ruff: that’s the biggest unknown variable that could swing pretty substantially in our favour re: the improvement metric. But the tired, “well the improvement is gonna have to come from what we have” end line there is just that - pretty tired. Of course that’s the case, because we didn’t make any top 6 or top 4 additions yet. Laying the entire burden on bounce backs (last year it was re-production of career years) is a choice, and not a good one (I understand you aren’t advocating for that strategy)

this team getting into the playoffs this year saves Adams’ job. Key word there is “saves”. He’s well past the situation where merely making the playoffs proves any sort of skill or aptitude: that’s the expected goal of years gone by. This is year 5: making the playoffs is merely that bare minimum that avoids canning. The absolute least you can do to justify having a job. Adams has already proven he isn’t a good GM: now, we are simply waiting for the cookie to crumble our way. Just because you have a below average GM doesn’t mean things can’t go your way the odd time: with our expectations being so absurdly low this far in, with a little bit of luck, Adams can probably amount to an output less-bad enough from what we’ve seen to field the mediocre team required to make the playoffs (see: Washington) 

As I said, the entire fanbase does this franchise such an incredible solid by us all willingly lowering the bar of expectation time and time and time 

and time 

and time 

again. Playoffs remain reasonably possible: we just need Adams to amount to mediocrity, a vast, vast turn of favour compared to the historic ineptitude we’ve seen to this point 

Edited August 20 by Thorny

[Pimlach]

24 minutes ago, Thorny said:

Apologies, meant to respond earlier 

- I think we need to see this roster approach matching last year’s roster before contemplating the step forward you mentioned. Byram wasn’t just “not the good Byram” he was probably our worst player after acquisition: he certainly was our worst defensively. And the cost was the player performing as our best forward at the time of the deal. The roster being improved over last year imo misses a substantial stair on the way up.

Supplemtenting the bottom 6 and running back the rest is what established good teams do.

I do agree on Ruff: that’s the biggest unknown variable that could swing pretty substantially in our favour re: the improvement metric. But the tired, “well the improvement is gonna have to come from what we have” end line there is just that - pretty tired. Of course that’s the case, because we didn’t make any top 6 or top 4 additions yet. Laying the entire burden on bounce backs (last year it was re-production of career years) is a choice, and not a good one (I understand you aren’t advocating for that strategy)

this team getting into the playoffs this year saves Adams’ job. Key word there is “saves”. He’s well past the situation where merely making the playoffs proves any sort of skill or aptitude: that’s the expected goal of years gone by. This is year 5: making the playoffs is merely that bare minimum that avoids canning. The absolute least you can do to justify having a job. Adams has already proven he isn’t a good GM: now, we are simply waiting for the cookie to crumble our way. Just because you have a below average GM doesn’t mean things can’t go your way the odd time: with our expectations being so absurdly low this far in, with a little bit of luck, Adams can probably amount to an output less-bad enough from what we’ve seen to field the mediocre team required to make the playoffs (see: Washington) 

As I said, the entire fanbase does this franchise such an incredible solid by us all willingly lowering the bar of expectation time and time and time 

and time 

and time 

again. Playoffs remain reasonably possible: we just need Adams to amount to mediocrity, a vast, vast turn of favour compared to the historic ineptitude we’ve seen to this point 

Ok, I get it.  But it should not take too much for this roster to get better results than last year- and I still believe a lot more hinges on the play of UPL, Thompson, and Cozens than say Malenstyn, McLeod, and Zucker.   Ruff will add an NHL worthy system, and will hold them accountable, and the new players will add some speed and grit.  

While I have never been very excited about the Byram for Mitts trade, I am looking for him to play up to his lofty draft status of 4OA, and so far I do not see anything close to elite in the limited time he has been a Sabre.  If Byram does emerge, then we have to figure out how to re-sign him, and I guess that could be a good problem too.  

[Thorner]

36 minutes ago, Pimlach said:

Ok, I get it.  But it should not take too much for this roster to get better results than last year- and I still believe a lot more hinges on the play of UPL, Thompson, and Cozens than say Malenstyn, McLeod, and Zucker.   Ruff will add an NHL worthy system, and will hold them accountable, and the new players will add some speed and grit.  

While I have never been very excited about the Byram for Mitts trade, I am looking for him to play up to his lofty draft status of 4OA, and so far I do not see anything close to elite in the limited time he has been a Sabre.  If Byram does emerge, then we have to figure out how to re-sign him, and I guess that could be a good problem too.  

You are correct: it’s just a big part of the reason that’s the way it necessarily is, is because the names in question are Malenstyn, McLeod and Zucker

[dudacek]

2 hours ago, Thorny said:

Byram wasn’t just “not the good Byram” he was probably our worst player after acquisition: he certainly was our worst defensively.

The team went 9-8-1 with Byram, roughly a 95-point pace, or better than it did with Casey, so trading one of our best players for one of our worst didn't significantly affect team results.

 What particular thing is it that you and GA seem to be putting so much emphasis on?

There must be some analytical metric that was Tweeted out somewhere and got burned into your brains.

Since he was acquired, Byram's team rankings over 18 games were:

• Points: 9, tied for 7th
• Plus/minus: -1, 14th
• Shots: 21, 10th
• Time on Ice: 21:51, 3rd
• ES TOI: 18:56 3rd
• Hits: 34, 6th
• Blocked shots: 29 3rd
• Shot attempt percentage 46.5, 15th
• Giveaways: 6 13th
• Takeaways: 7 8th
• Penalties drawn: 3 6th
• Net penalties: -2 15th
• He was 7th in PP ice time and was on the ice for 3 PP goals
• He was 10th in SH ice time and wasn't on the ice for a goal against while killing a penalty

Those certainly aren't the counting stats (all from NHL.com) of "probably our worst player."

i pulled out his evolving Hockey numbers and his expected goals against there aren't good, but they're outweighed by his expected goals for.

https://evolving-hockey.com/stats/players/?_inputs_&player="Bowen Byram"

I know Ive seem some chart overflowing with red at some point, but I haven't been able to pull it up.

It has to be pretty awful and pretty broad to back up the worst player on the team claim in the context of his regular numbers.

Edited August 20 by dudacek

[LGR4GM]

If this team misses the playoffs, I'll have no more use for them. Not while Terry owns them. 

[msw2112]

Glass half empty says that they've lost more scoring than they've acquired and defensively are about the same, and as such are likely to finish about where they did last season and out of the playoffs.  Glass half full says that if Lindy can have the team ready to play every night (not falling behind by 2+ goals early in the 1st period on a regular basis sort of thing), improve the power play, and they can get a full season of the goaltending that they got after January 1 last year, they're a playoff team.  I have no idea how it's going to turn out.  I'm not nearly as excited as I was going into last season when I thought the team was going to continue its upward trajectory and take the next step.  I'm not full of doom and gloom either.  I guess I'm just in "wait and see" mode.

[That Aud Smell]

41 minutes ago, dudacek said:

The team went 9-8-1 with Byram, roughly a 95-point pace

19 points over 18 games is an ~87 point pace. Am I missing/misreading something?

[Thorner]

1 hour ago, dudacek said:

The team went 9-8-1 with Byram, roughly a 95-point pace, or better than it did with Casey, so trading one of our best players for one of our worst didn't significantly affect team results.

 What particular thing is it that you and GA seem to be putting so much emphasis on?

There must be some analytical metric that was Tweeted out somewhere and got burned into your brains.

Since he was acquired, Byram's team rankings over 18 games were:

• Points: 9, tied for 7th
• Plus/minus: -1, 14th
• Shots: 21, 10th
• Time on Ice: 21:51, 3rd
• ES TOI: 18:56 3rd
• Hits: 34, 6th
• Blocked shots: 29 3rd
• Shot attempt percentage 46.5, 15th
• Giveaways: 6 13th
• Takeaways: 7 8th
• Penalties drawn: 3 6th
• Net penalties: -2 15th
• He was 7th in PP ice time and was on the ice for 3 PP goals
• He was 10th in SH ice time and wasn't on the ice for a goal against while killing a penalty

Those certainly aren't the counting stats (all from NHL.com) of "probably our worst player."

i pulled out his evolving Hockey numbers and his expected goals against there aren't good, but they're outweighed by his expected goals for.

https://evolving-hockey.com/stats/players/?_inputs_&player="Bowen Byram"

I know Ive seem some chart overflowing with red at some point, but I haven't been able to pull it up.

It has to be pretty awful and pretty broad to back up the worst player on the team claim in the context of his regular numbers.

The rub if that the guy we traded him for was 1st in almost all the categories that mattered. The degree of difficulty is so hard for you here because you have to argue that “see, he’s 15th!” Is some sort of benefit to the positive when we cashed in the greatest trade chip we had to get a player who played poorly.

His advanced metrics definitely indicated he was our worst player defensively. Saying he was our worst overall is absolutely, admittedly hyperbole, but I did that on purpose: I knew you’d latch on to it because the name of your game is “see, it’s not THAT bad”. It’s never about what actually is relative to good - the fact you can only cling to Byram being “well not actually our worst player” is my whole point. It’s the intentionally placed low-hanging fruit of my post to engage the war I actually want to wage 

Time on ice isn’t a positive barometer in and of itself, when he’s spending that time locked in his own end - you are writing home about the fact (let’s see what the salient stat was that you buried in there):  the team got outshot by 7 percent when he was on the ice. Good for 15th on the team. Sorry, did I say worst? He’s one of the worst. You win: we only trade Casey for one of our worst players 

he’s below team average (OUR team!) in half the non time on ice categories you mentioned, near the bottom for the most reflective ones (shot share, etc), and things like hits that don’t correlate to winning (he’s hitting because he’s chasing) and blocked shots (derp) are his biggest claim to fame

54 minutes ago, That Aud Smell said:

19 points over 18 games is an ~87 point pace. Am I missing/misreading something?

Quick math in the name of bias 

(this is a joke) 

Edited August 20 by Thorny

[Thorner]

58 minutes ago, LGR4GM said:

If this team misses the playoffs, I'll have no more use for them. Not while Terry owns them. 

This is me, but substitute KA. They are part and parcel regardless in reality, in terms of strategy 

[Thorner]

On 7/3/2024 at 7:53 PM, dudacek said:

Hockey reference is showing him a -3 on expected goals, and -1 on actual ES goal differential. His Corsi is -0.3. Those are his Buffalo numbers only.

If he's a train wreck in his own zone on whatever metric you saw, he must be pretty much exactly the opposite at the other end.

 

On 7/3/2024 at 7:57 PM, Thorny said:

So what you are saying is Bowen Byram was a net negative player 

Just so I understand, you want to fight the battle that being only *somewhat* of an…overall disadvantage to your hockey team is a reasonable return for not only the player producing as your BEST forward but also, the largest trade chip your GM has ever utilized in a hockey trade?

We keep having this same conversation.

Me losing the battle you want to fight that he’s not actually our very worst player is fine by me and one I will continue baiting the line on when it only continuously results in your admirable posting breakdowns chock full of good stats (as per usual) about how inferior Byram was to Casey in their times here so far 

I don’t understand why you don’t just wait until Byram actually plays well. But you are doing the work for me so I can’t complain 

- - - 

Im also clearly not digging my feat in here in perpetuity: I buy the idea Byram has unrealized pedigree, I truly do. I’ve said just a couple posts ago that Byram could even end up better than Casey! I guess I just have more reluctance that most to claim something adept or efficient until it actually literally happens. I see no reason to claim Byram to be that player in Buffalo until we actually see it. If that makes me a negative Nancy, because I don’t purely want to rely on blind faith: so be it 

the fact of the matter, if those matter, is that one player was significantly better during their time here during 23-24, and the indicators as to which are indisputable 

Edited August 20 by Thorny

[LGR4GM]

I don't like the Byram for Mitts trade. It didn't make sense and doesn't move the needle. Maybe Byram figures it out this year, all we can hope for. 

[dudacek]

3 hours ago, That Aud Smell said:

19 points over 18 games is an ~87 point pace. Am I missing/misreading something?

Nope. That's my bad math. Still better, but negligibly.

 

3 hours ago, Thorny said:

The rub if that the guy we traded him for was 1st in almost all the categories that mattered. The degree of difficulty is so hard for you here because you have to argue that “see, he’s 15th!” Is some sort of benefit to the positive when we cashed in the greatest trade chip we had to get a player who played poorly.

His advanced metrics definitely indicated he was our worst player defensively. Saying he was our worst overall is absolutely, admittedly hyperbole, but I did that on purpose: I knew you’d latch on to it because the name of your game is “see, it’s not THAT bad”. It’s never about what actually is relative to good - the fact you can only cling to Byram being “well not actually our worst player” is my whole point. It’s the intentionally placed low-hanging fruit of my post to engage the war I actually want to wage 

Time on ice isn’t a positive barometer in and of itself, when he’s spending that time locked in his own end - you are writing home about the fact (let’s see what the salient stat was that you buried in there):  the team got outshot by 7 percent when he was on the ice. Good for 15th on the team. Sorry, did I say worst? He’s one of the worst. You win: we only trade Casey for one of our worst players 

he’s below team average (OUR team!) in half the non time on ice categories you mentioned, near the bottom for the most reflective ones (shot share, etc), and things like hits that don’t correlate to winning (he’s hitting because he’s chasing) and blocked shots (derp) are his biggest claim to fame

Quick math in the name of bias 

(this is a joke) 

You know me too well. My red flag is definitely hyperbole. 😁

But I'm reading the answer my initial question is that you think he's one of our worst players mostly because of shot attempts?

Edited August 20 by dudacek

[Thorner]

1 hour ago, dudacek said:

You know me too well. My red flag is definitely hyperbole. 😁

But I'm reading the answer my initial question is that you think he's one of our worst players mostly because of shot attempts?

The opposition seemed to carry the balance of play when he was on the ice

again, you know ME pretty well, I’m using “one of the worst”, “worst”, cause he flat out stunk on balance and it cheeses me off. I get the numbers can be construed to put him merely below average on a bad team but that only rankles further. The important thing for me is the convo necessarily is “was he really bad or just mediocre”? That’s a problem.

I get what you are saying. I see the talent too. He wouldn’t be among my last picks when building a team among the players we have: I’m just pointing out his output was inarguably “not good”, and we traded “good” to get him. Perhaps we can agree on at least that. The book is far from written: he could return to the form his draft pedigree and some of his play in coloradoland indicated.

But we need it RIGHT NOW. Perhaps in combination with what I quote next, you can understand where I’m coming from, even if for you, year 5 missing under this tenure is just a warm up 

 

3 hours ago, Thorny said:

This is me, but substitute KA. They are part and parcel regardless in reality, in terms of strategy 

 

That was supposed to merge but did not 

but my point remains: a lot of the potential benefit to Byram is to be found in what’s supposedly *to come*. None of that matters for me if it’s not this year. It is BEYOND time. Not everyone is going to be such a stickler for timeline but I’m comfortable drawing a personal line here is far from impatient 

 

1 hour ago, dudacek said:

Unless my math continues to be bad, it worked out to being outshot about 19.5 to 17 per game. With Casey we outshot the opposition about 13.5 to 13.

This seems significant to me. With what we know about the generally limited impact of one player in a free flowing, play-25%-of-it -if-you-are-a-star game we know hockey to be. I struggle to even attribute a 3 shot difference per game between the 2 necessarily cause again that seems significant to me and that “we can’t lose with mvp samuelsson” stat should illustrate beyond recourse that there are myriad variables at play 

but ok, we got only a bit worse with Byram (I feel like that’s the terminology you might use contrary to my view it’s a significant swing) and because Byram is very talented that means the ground we need to make up by him returning to form is a little less than I thought and I should be more hopeful for it to happen 

- - - 

But if it doesn’t, it’s your a**. And I’m coming for ya

Edited August 20 by Thorny

[dudacek]

4 minutes ago, Thorny said:

The opposition seemed to carry the balance of play when he was on the ice

Unless my math continues to be bad, it worked out to being outshot about 19.5 to 17 per game. With Casey we outshot the opposition about 13.5 to 13.

[7+6=13]

I'm excited about the upcoming season.  

[_Q_]

5 hours ago, LGR4GM said:

If this team misses the playoffs, I'll have no more use for them. Not while Terry owns them. 

Until they make it.

[_Q_]

42 minutes ago, 7+6=13 said:

I'm excited about the upcoming season.  

Same.

The attitudes wouldn't be this bad without the scar tissue of the past however many years.  That IMO should be irrelevant to hope or optimism.

[dudacek]

3 hours ago, Thorny said:

The opposition seemed to carry the balance of play when he was on the ice

again, you know ME pretty well, I’m using “one of the worst”, “worst”, cause he flat out stunk on balance and it cheeses me off. I get the numbers can be construed to put him merely below average on a bad team but that only rankles further. The important thing for me is the convo necessarily is “was he really bad or just mediocre”? That’s a problem.

I get what you are saying. I see the talent too. He wouldn’t be among my last picks when building a team among the players we have: I’m just pointing out his output was inarguably “not good”, and we traded “good” to get him. Perhaps we can agree on at least that. The book is far from written: he could return to the form his draft pedigree and some of his play in coloradoland indicated.

But we need it RIGHT NOW. Perhaps in combination with what I quote next, you can understand where I’m coming from, even if for you, year 5 missing under this tenure is just a warm up 

 

 

That was supposed to merge but did not 

but my point remains: a lot of the potential benefit to Byram is to be found in what’s supposedly *to come*. None of that matters for me if it’s not this year. It is BEYOND time. Not everyone is going to be such a stickler for timeline but I’m comfortable drawing a personal line here is far from impatient 

 

This seems significant to me. With what we know about the generally limited impact of one player in a free flowing, play-25%-of-it -if-you-are-a-star game we know hockey to be. I struggle to even attribute a 3 shot difference per game between the 2 necessarily cause again that seems significant to me and that “we can’t lose with mvp samuelsson” stat should illustrate beyond recourse that there are myriad variables at play 

but ok, we got only a bit worse with Byram (I feel like that’s the terminology you might use contrary to my view it’s a significant swing) and because Byram is very talented that means the ground we need to make up by him returning to form is a little less than I thought and I should be more hopeful for it to happen 

- - - 

But if it doesn’t, it’s your a**. And I’m coming for ya

Full confession is I was extremely high on Byram in his draft year.

I was also hyper-focused on Canada's COVID 2020/21 world junior team. It was one of my favourite teams of all time and I probably shouldn't be surprised they lost in the final because that's how my fandom rolls. Byram cemented my high opinion of him there as the captain and best defenceman in the tournament, going +13 in 7 games. I don't know if he was on for a goal against the entire tourney.

I was extremely high on him in his cup run. And every time I watched him since, prior to Buffalo to picking him up, I've never seen anything to make me second-guess my opinion that he was going to be a good one.

He's no Dahlin, but he's like Dahlin in the sense that he is all-in. He competes both ways and he goes for it hard both ways and he makes plays.

The player I watched in Buffalo reminded me of Dahlin under Krueger; a kid who was second-guessing himself and thinking too much.

I don't often go out on a limb like this, but I think Lindy is going to be perfect for him. He's going set his boundaries and tell him to for it within them. And Byram will respond He's got game and he will find it.

I'll be surprised if it doesn't happen this year.

Edited August 21 by dudacek

[LGR4GM]

23 minutes ago, _Q_ said:

Until they make it.

Make what? If they miss the playoffs for 14 straight years there's no reason to stay around while Terry is here. 

[7+6=13]

7 minutes ago, _Q_ said:

Same.

The attitudes wouldn't be this bad without the scar tissue of the past however many years.  That IMO should be irrelevant to hope or optimism.

I don't blame anyone for the way this franchise has caused them to feel.  However, I think some of the negative gets a little out of hand.

It's reasonable to believe some players that had a down year can bounce back, young players can continue getting better, the bottom 6 can be better and Lindy will be can be a significant influence.

If we stay healthy and UPL is legit, I think we'll be a good team that we can respect.

[mjd1001]

2 hours ago, 7+6=13 said:

I'm excited about the upcoming season.  

I am too, until they give me reason to not be.

I just wish the season wasn't starting overseas against New Jersey.  While some may not like the Lindy hire, I think if the season opener was in Buffalo there would be a lot of energy in that building (as much as can be for a new coach) and it would be fun to watch.  I also think that New Jersey has a shot at being the best team in the league, and this Sabres team might start the season 0-2, which will take a lot of energy out of things, simply because they have to start with 2 games against New Jersey.