Goal Scoring and the Sabres Current Forwards

[dudacek]

18 minutes ago, LGR4GM said:

Methodology is flawed. Take the rookie year out completely. 

I'd do years 2-3 and then their last 3 years (whatever that looks like)

Also you can take Eichel and Reinhart out, they did exactly what 2nd overall players should. Dropping Reinhart is still one of the dumbest decisions Adams made and I like Levi. 

Why would I take out the rookie year when my entire point was determining whether players are likely to score more in their second 200 games than their first 200 games?

And the only reason I did the exercise in the first place was you telling me that they're not?

Edited August 22 by dudacek

[LGR4GM]

3 minutes ago, dudacek said:

Why would I take out the rookie year when my entire point was determining whether players are likely to score more in their second 200 games than their first 200 games?

And the only reason I did the exercise in the first place was you telling me that they're not?

Because the rookie year is almost always for everyone low compared to what comes after. It's skewing things. 

They are not what? 

[dudacek]

8 hours ago, dudacek said:

I'm curious to see what trends are historically when you compare career averages to averages over the first 200 or so games.

I suspect guys like Cozens, Krebs, Benson, Peterka, Quinn, McLeod, Power, Byram and even Malenstyn are at a point in their careers where we should generally be expecting them to score over their career average.

 

8 hours ago, LGR4GM said:

No you shouldn't to all the bolded. Most of those guys are either A. old or B. over 200 games already. 

 

8 hours ago, dudacek said:

My point was that I suspect their average over their second 200 games to be higher than their first 200 games.

Byram and Power have played about 160 games each, Malenstyn 100. Krebs and McLeod just over 200

 

7 hours ago, LGR4GM said:

Your theory is everyone gets better, they don't. 

 

Trying again:

I think players generally score more frequently in their 2nd 200 games than their first.

Anecdotally, my imperfect research indicates that tends to be true

I think the Sabres have a high number of players with 200 or less games.

Therefore, I will not be surprised if a majority of those players outscore their career averages

[LGR4GM]

6 minutes ago, dudacek said:

 

 

 

 

Trying again:

I think players generally score more frequently in their 2nd 200 games than their first.

Anecdotally, my imperfect research indicates that tends to be true

I think the Sabres have a high number of players with 200 or less games.

Therefore, I will not be surprised if a majority of those players outscore their career averages

I think some of those players are A. Old and B. At or over 200 so we know what they bring. Said another way, I don't suddenly expect Krebs to score a bunch. 

[LGR4GM]

2 hours ago, dudacek said:

 

• Eichel 29 32
• Reinhart 22 28
• Okposo 21 23
• Skinner 28 28
• Tuch 18 30
• O’Reilly 14 22
• Rodrigues 11 19
• Girgensons 12 7
• Larson 9 8
• Dahlin 7 16

 

Almost all these guys were 18 or 19 in their first year. Comparing them to guys who are 24 as rookies and now 25 or 26 seems flawed. Age matters here. 

[French Collection]

50 minutes ago, LGR4GM said:

I think some of those players are A. Old and B. At or over 200 so we know what they bring. Said another way, I don't suddenly expect Krebs to score a bunch. 

You have to consider that their “weak” rookie years can make up more than a third of their first 200 games.

[dudacek]

1 hour ago, LGR4GM said:

I think some of those players are A. Old and B. At or over 200 so we know what they bring. Said another way, I don't suddenly expect Krebs to score a bunch. 

I don't expect Krebs to score a bunch either, but I wouldn't be surprised if scores more than his average of 7.

Said another way, McLeod has played 219 NHL games and has an average of 11 goals a season. I'm not expecting him to score 20, but if the over/under is 11, odds tell me to take the over

1 hour ago, LGR4GM said:

Almost all these guys were 18 or 19 in their first year. Comparing them to guys who are 24 as rookies and now 25 or 26 seems flawed. Age matters here. 

Yes it probably does, as I was trying to allude to in my initial post about Malenstyn.

Cozens, Krebs, Benson, Peterka, Quinn, Power and Byram were all in the NHL by age 20.

it feels that you are arguing that I should not expect a big leap from any player over 200 games (basically, Cozens, Krebs and McLeod)

I generally agree, but it has never been my argument here to say otherwise.

My argument is that when it come to matching career averages for all of these guys, the smart money is on the over.

Edited August 23 by dudacek

[PerreaultForever]

All depends on what system Ruff runs and how well they adapt. 

We are not likely to get much scoring from the bottom 6. At least not the way it appears they are being assembled, so scoring will have to come from the top 2 lines and the PP. PP HAS to be better for any success at all. 

 

[LGR4GM]

11 hours ago, dudacek said:

I don't expect Krebs to score a bunch either, but I wouldn't be surprised if scores more than his average of 7.

Said another way, McLeod has played 219 NHL games and has an average of 11 goals a season. I'm not expecting him to score 20, but if the over/under is 11, odds tell me to take the over

Yes it probably does, as I was trying to allude to in my initial post about Malenstyn.

Cozens, Krebs, Benson, Peterka, Quinn, Power and Byram were all in the NHL by age 20.

it feels that you are arguing that I should not expect a big leap from any player over 200 games (basically, Cozens, Krebs and McLeod)

I generally agree, but it has never been my argument here to say otherwise.

My argument is that when it come to matching career averages for all of these guys, the smart money is on the over.

You wanna take the over on everyone, I don't. 

We're a forward short still. 

[GASabresIUFAN]

On 8/23/2024 at 8:08 AM, LGR4GM said:

You wanna take the over on everyone, I don't. 

We're a forward short still. 

While I agree it’s possible to get 270 out if the current roster, it’s not likely.  We need another top 6 forward.  

If the goal is to play fast, you bring in a top 6 forward to replace Skinner’s lost offense, push Benson to the 3rd line and trade Greenway (our slowest player).  
 

 

 

Edited August 25 by GASabresIUFAN

[Carmel Corn]

1 hour ago, LGR4GM said:

You wanna take the over on everyone, I don't. 

We're a forward short still. 

GMKA's denial of this need is sickening.  I also cannot get past the notion that injuries will also hamper our existing "Top 6" goal scoring.

[bob_sauve28]

Cozens, Quinn, JJP and Tage will carry the team offensively with the defense contributing, too. They will also get decent scoring from the other forwards. 

That said, I think the real improvement will come from this team giving up fewer goals. The offseason moves really point towards the Top Brass creating a team that is harder to play against, shuts down the oppositions scoring chances and tilting the ice in the other teams direction. If this means they play boring hockey and win a lot of games 2-1 I'm all good with that. 

For me, I'll love to see them take a 1-0 lead into the third and win the game 2-0 with a TNT open net goal late. Just beautiful! 

 

[mjd1001]

1 hour ago, bob_sauve28 said:

Cozens, Quinn, JJP and Tage will carry the team offensively with the defense contributing, too. They will also get decent scoring from the other forwards. 

That said, I think the real improvement will come from this team giving up fewer goals. The offseason moves really point towards the Top Brass creating a team that is harder to play against, shuts down the oppositions scoring chances and tilting the ice in the other teams direction. If this means they play boring hockey and win a lot of games 2-1 I'm all good with that. 

For me, I'll love to see them take a 1-0 lead into the third and win the game 2-0 with a TNT open net goal late. Just beautiful! 

 

Maybe they will give up fewer goals...but...the key may be to just not 'mess up' how they played in the 2nd half of last season giving up goals, whether that is through goaltending, defensive play, or both.

Personally, I think something changed with this team right about January 1, where the forwards started playing MUCH better from the turn of the calendar into 2024 through the end of the season.  One of the things I enjoy is looking at each goal allowed game by game (I try to post about it after games) and see if there was something OBVIOUS that caused the goals allowed.   And usually, it was a forward (or a couple of them) that made an OBVIOUS mistake that led to close to 1/2 of the goals allowed.  That almost stopped after the first of the year. Sure, the PK had some issues, and Cozens still chased a lot to get him out of position, but they got a lot better and it was noticable.

The Sabres allowed a total of 112 goals in their last 44 games (basically since the calendar turned to 2024.) That's about 2.55 goals per 60/game.  Over 82 games, that is 209 goals allowed. Over last season, only 2 teams allowed less goals than that.

If part of that is UPL, and part of that is the forwards just playing better in their own zone, then I think...don't mess that up! just find a way to score 3-4 more goals per month and you are where you need to be.  

They did score 135 since Jan 1 while allowing 112. They were a plus 23 in goal differential.   YES, I KNOW that we can always take small segments of a season and project them over long stretches to make a point we want to make...and it always doesn't work.  So, this math exercise can be dangerous. But, a +35 over the last 44 games (NOT an insignificant sample size) is a +65 over an 82 game stretch.  Remember, in the league, and in particular the east, if you are a positive team over the entire year in goal differential, you make the playoffs more than 90% of the time.  Only 2 teams last year were better than a +65 for the season.

So again, yeah, every team has stretches like that. But again, take what you did for the 2nd half of last year...make it a bit better but don't mess up what they started to do.

Edited August 24 by mjd1001

[bob_sauve28]

14 minutes ago, mjd1001 said:

 

So again, yeah, every team has stretches like that. But again, take what you did for the 2nd half of last year...make it a bit better but don't mess up what they started to do.

Yup, then add in the new bottom six they have and hopefully they will take off being a tough, fast team that doesn't give up much, scores timely goals and shuts down the other team when it matters most. 

[R_Dudley]

Well, the facts and stats LGR4GM and some others share here are sobering and support my concern that we are a fringe playoff team as currently constituted.

It really impresses me that we will really need Lindy's plan and execution, health of key players/positions, solid goaltending, and a few player surprises above their current means to make this a playoff team. 

Good thing I'm not a betting man because I don't think I would take this one right now, but that is why I watch and never say never.    

[dudacek]

Here's a stat that surprised me, considering my perception of last year's offence:

• The Sabres ranked 12th in the NHL in goals for at 5-on-5 last year, tied with the Bruins with 174

Just five more even-strength goals would have tied them for 6th overall.

They scored more 5-on-5 goals than Tampa, Carolina, the Rangers and the Panthers

But at 5-on-4, they scored just 34 times, ranking 29th.

Tampa had 67, Carolina 61, the Rangers 56 and the Panthers 59

It seems pretty simple to me: fix the power play and the offence will be fine

Edited August 24 by dudacek

[bob_sauve28]

1 hour ago, dudacek said:

Here's a stat that surprised me, considering my perception of last year's offence:

• The Sabres ranked 12th in the NHL in goals for 5-on-5 last year, tied with the Bruins with 174

Just five more even-strength goals would have tied them for 6th overall.

They scored more 5-on-5 goals than Tampa, Carolina, the Rangers and the Panthers

But at 5-on-4, they scored just 34 times, ranking 29th.

Tampa had 67, Carolina 61, the Rangers 56 and the Panthers 59

It seems pretty simple to me: fix the power play and the offence will be fine

I  hope Quinn and JJP are part of PP unit 1 or if one or both are on unit 2, they see a decent amount of ice time 

[dudacek]

1 minute ago, bob_sauve28 said:

I  hope Quinn and JJP are part of PP unit 1 or if one or both are on unit 2, they see a decent amount of ice time 

Historically, JJP has had a lot of success at the right half-wall, which is a spot that was unsettled at PP1 for the Sabres last year.

My first choice for that spot is Byram, but given Appert's history with him, and think we'll see JJ get the first shot there and I wouldn't be surprised if he's successful.

Quinn worked the left half-wall for Appert, but I would be shocked if they moved away from Tage there. I think he gets first look at the bumper spot, which Lindy seemed to suggest was going to be a focus.

He's got the skills to be a weapon there, and I think he'll be an upgrade on Skinner regardless of how he's used.

[bob_sauve28]

21 minutes ago, dudacek said:

Historically, JJP has had a lot of success at the right half-wall, which is a spot that was unsettled at PP1 for the Sabres last year.

My first choice for that spot is Byram, but given Appert's history with him, and think we'll see JJ get the first shot there and I wouldn't be surprised if he's successful.

Quinn worked the left half-wall for Appert, but I would be shocked if they moved away from Tage there. I think he gets first look at the bumper spot, which Lindy seemed to suggest was going to be a focus.

He's got the skills to be a weapon there, and I think he'll be an upgrade on Skinner regardless of how he's used.

I would at least try, as an experiment, putting TNT in front of the net on PP. I think he might excel at that, like maybe, Dave Andreychuk? He has good hands, good reach, is a big body for sure. 

[Thorny]

6 hours ago, dudacek said:

Here's a stat that surprised me, considering my perception of last year's offence:

• The Sabres ranked 12th in the NHL in goals for at 5-on-5 last year, tied with the Bruins with 174

Just five more even-strength goals would have tied them for 6th overall.

They scored more 5-on-5 goals than Tampa, Carolina, the Rangers and the Panthers

But at 5-on-4, they scored just 34 times, ranking 29th.

Tampa had 67, Carolina 61, the Rangers 56 and the Panthers 59

It seems pretty simple to me: fix the power play and the offence will be fine

5 goals away from 6th, and 5 from 17th 

Mind the full picture, Mr. Bombay 

There’s nothing simple about it, it’s wildly up in the air. You can squint and skew all you like, but the Sabres were actually 15th in even strength goals, mid pack. People tend to use 5v5 synonymously with even strength (ie move on to PP discussion after breaking down 5 V 5) but that’s not really a comprehensive analysis. Non-negligible portion of game is played at even strength NOT 5 V 5, not negligible in the sense the overall numbers clearly change when factored in, not to mention the fact we are clawing for every point we can get.

We can play the “get everything to average and we’ll be fine” game, but it’s a dicey proposition as it doesn’t leave much room for error. It’s requiring a lot of improvement in deficiency areas just to match our high water marks which are only hovering around average to begin with 

You are right though, if we can improve by ~5 and move into the top 10, rather than decrease by 5 and move into the bottom 20, it’ll go a long way. In combination with improving special teams and in combination with maintaining goals against 

there’s no denying the PP represents massive opportunity for improvement. The more likely issue would appear to be, at least anecdotally to me after watching for so long, not so much improving areas that are lacking but rather maintaining the areas that aren’t as you do so. We saw the shell game in full demonstrable effect when comparing the switch from 22-23 to 23-24

did we change the PP coach? Actually asking 

Edited August 24 by Thorny

[Taro T]

3 hours ago, Thorny said:

5 goals away from 6th, and 5 from 17th 

Mind the full picture, Mr. Bombay 

There’s nothing simple about it, it’s wildly up in the air. You can squint and skew all you like, but the Sabres were actually 15th in even strength goals, mid pack. People tend to use 5v5 synonymously with even strength (ie move on to PP discussion after breaking down 5 V 5) but that’s not really a comprehensive analysis. Non-negligible portion of game is played at even strength NOT 5 V 5, not negligible in the sense the overall numbers clearly change when factored in, not to mention the fact we are clawing for every point we can get.

We can play the “get everything to average and we’ll be fine” game, but it’s a dicey proposition as it doesn’t leave much room for error. It’s requiring a lot of improvement in deficiency areas just to match our high water marks which are only hovering around average to begin with 

You are right though, if we can improve by ~5 and move into the top 10, rather than decrease by 5 and move into the bottom 20, it’ll go a long way. In combination with improving special teams and in combination with maintaining goals against 

there’s no denying the PP represents massive opportunity for improvement. The more likely issue would appear to be, at least anecdotally to me after watching for so long, not so much improving areas that are lacking but rather maintaining the areas that aren’t as you do so. We saw the shell game in full demonstrable effect when comparing the switch from 22-23 to 23-24

did we change the PP coach? Actually asking 

Yes.  Appert and Ruff are in charge of it now.

So, expect Peterka opposite Thompson and Quinn to get the 1st crack at the bumper slot.

[7+6=13]

I think what's missing here for me is using the words over and leaps as it relates to average.  

When I first read LGR's post, I couldn't help but feel like, man we're in more trouble than I thought.  My brain went to, how can I expect several players to have career years to get to that desired goal number? Am I the only one that let their brain have that thought?

However the average kept coming back into my mind. Why can't MORE players sum above their average subtracted from the sum of players below their average be greater?  I absolutely think this can happen.  

I certainly don't know that it will be 17 goals greater than the sum of averages, but to me, it's not unreasonable to think it can be closer to 270 than 253.

[LGR4GM]

22 hours ago, mjd1001 said:

Maybe they will give up fewer goals...but...the key may be to just not 'mess up' how they played in the 2nd half of last season giving up goals, whether that is through goaltending, defensive play, or both.

Personally, I think something changed with this team right about January 1, where the forwards started playing MUCH better from the turn of the calendar into 2024 through the end of the season.  One of the things I enjoy is looking at each goal allowed game by game (I try to post about it after games) and see if there was something OBVIOUS that caused the goals allowed.   And usually, it was a forward (or a couple of them) that made an OBVIOUS mistake that led to close to 1/2 of the goals allowed.  That almost stopped after the first of the year. Sure, the PK had some issues, and Cozens still chased a lot to get him out of position, but they got a lot better and it was noticable.

The Sabres allowed a total of 112 goals in their last 44 games (basically since the calendar turned to 2024.) That's about 2.55 goals per 60/game.  Over 82 games, that is 209 goals allowed. Over last season, only 2 teams allowed less goals than that.

If part of that is UPL, and part of that is the forwards just playing better in their own zone, then I think...don't mess that up! just find a way to score 3-4 more goals per month and you are where you need to be.  

They did score 135 since Jan 1 while allowing 112. They were a plus 23 in goal differential.   YES, I KNOW that we can always take small segments of a season and project them over long stretches to make a point we want to make...and it always doesn't work.  So, this math exercise can be dangerous. But, a +35 over the last 44 games (NOT an insignificant sample size) is a +65 over an 82 game stretch.  Remember, in the league, and in particular the east, if you are a positive team over the entire year in goal differential, you make the playoffs more than 90% of the time.  Only 2 teams last year were better than a +65 for the season.

So again, yeah, every team has stretches like that. But again, take what you did for the 2nd half of last year...make it a bit better but don't mess up what they started to do.

Can I be honest? I don't care. They didn't do this over a full season and it's been 13 years of them not doing it over a full season. 

[LGR4GM]

14 hours ago, Thorny said:

5 goals away from 6th, and 5 from 17th 

Mind the full picture, Mr. Bombay 

There’s nothing simple about it, it’s wildly up in the air. You can squint and skew all you like, but the Sabres were actually 15th in even strength goals, mid pack. People tend to use 5v5 synonymously with even strength (ie move on to PP discussion after breaking down 5 V 5) but that’s not really a comprehensive analysis. Non-negligible portion of game is played at even strength NOT 5 V 5, not negligible in the sense the overall numbers clearly change when factored in, not to mention the fact we are clawing for every point we can get.

We can play the “get everything to average and we’ll be fine” game, but it’s a dicey proposition as it doesn’t leave much room for error. It’s requiring a lot of improvement in deficiency areas just to match our high water marks which are only hovering around average to begin with 

You are right though, if we can improve by ~5 and move into the top 10, rather than decrease by 5 and move into the bottom 20, it’ll go a long way. In combination with improving special teams and in combination with maintaining goals against 

there’s no denying the PP represents massive opportunity for improvement. The more likely issue would appear to be, at least anecdotally to me after watching for so long, not so much improving areas that are lacking but rather maintaining the areas that aren’t as you do so. We saw the shell game in full demonstrable effect when comparing the switch from 22-23 to 23-24

did we change the PP coach? Actually asking 

The pp was trash in 22-23 too. It just had like a 6 week period of tage olofsson one timers to mask how awful it was. 

[bob_sauve28]

22 hours ago, R_Dudley said:

Well, the facts and stats LGR4GM and some others share here are sobering and support my concern that we are a fringe playoff team as currently constituted.

 

Fine, I'll take a fringe playoff team over a non-playoff team. Right? Let's not lose sight of the fact statistics are for losers. UPL was supposed to be a bust, too. How'd that analysis turn out? They have remade much of the team, did addition by subtraction with Skinner, new coach, good goaltending, depth at defense, and a couple of rising stars in Quinn, JJP and several others. There is reason to be optimistic. Get the PP and PK going and this team can actually be really good. And if it's a fringe playoff team this year, they will only get better with playoff experience. 

 

I'm loving this awesome summer, but can't wait for Sabres season to begin.