GDT: Sabres @ Washington Capitals 3/30/25 3:00 PM ET; MSG/MNMT, ESPN+

[GASabresIUFAN]

44 minutes ago, Thorner said:

No, the sabres are 9th in ES goals and 19th in even strength goal differential. Their best aspect is even strength and they are BELOW AVERAGE. You can’t even formulate congruent arguments within your own logic. Yes, Adams is terrible and we are in 29th and the forwards are awful defensively but, forwards aren’t the issue! All the spots are filled. I look forward to you reiterating that fact multiple times this offseason

watch the games 

they scored 8 goals today 

it doesn’t MEAN anything. They are front runners who can’t play defence

The Sabres had 161 GF 5 on 5 heading into today’s game.  That’s 6th in the NHL.  

The Sabres goaltending has a .908 save % 5 on 5.  The league average is .918.  

The defense is terrible. 

The negative differential is from bad goaltending and defense.  

 

[PromoTheRobot]

2 hours ago, Crusader1969 said:

Oh I bet they will be, the thing is Marner will just use them to drive his price up to sign elsewhere 

My 4th line Center 

Let Josh Allen close the deal. Buy Marner a luxury box at the new Highmark.

[mjd1001]

After 8 goals, the Sabres are now 8th overall out of 32 teams in offense (3.23 goals per game).

2nd in the league in even strength regulation time goals.

Tage tied for 3rd in the league in goals scored.

 

If only the defense/goaltending were better...but they have not been.

Sabres are the 2nd worst in goals per game allowed.

38 goalies have played over 30 games this season. UPL is 34th out of 38th in GAA and 36th out of 38 in save percentage.

Edited Monday at 12:06 AM by mjd1001

[Jorcus]

The way I look at this game I am just going to take the 24 hours and enjoy it.  I am not going to pick on the scabs of this team after they drop a snow man on the first place caps. I know Santa clause is not real but I still enjoy Christmas. This years Sabres are the best last place team I can remember following.

[Thorner]

27 minutes ago, GASabresIUFAN said:

The Sabres had 161 GF 5 on 5 heading into today’s game.  That’s 6th in the NHL.  

The Sabres goaltending has a .908 save % 5 on 5.  The league average is .918.  

The defense is terrible. 

The negative differential is from bad goaltending and defense.  

 

5 on 5 isn’t “even strength”

am I arguing with AI?

”their forwards score a lot, therefore they aren’t contributing to poor D”

your conclusions are Swiss cheese

Edited Monday at 12:12 AM by Thorner

[Thorner]

19 minutes ago, mjd1001 said:

After 8 goals, the Sabres are now 8th overall out of 32 teams in offense (3.23 goals per game).

2nd in the league in even strength regulation time goals.

Tage tied for 3rd in the league in goals scored.

 

If only the defense/goaltending were better...but they have not been.

Sabres are the 2nd worst in goals per game allowed.

38 goalies have played over 30 games this season. UPL is 34th out of 38th in GAA and 36th out of 38 in save percentage.

Which conclusion can we go with here that alleviates the most amount of a 28th place roster from the blame equation? 

Is there any way we can get this all on UPL and Power?

Asking for a friend 

- - - 

How narrow can we get this scapegoat? 
 

im looking to work backwards from, “most of the roster is set”. I think we can comfortably attribute our bottom of the barrel record to one or two position of need, no? I like the idea one guy changes the entire fortunes of a team - it’s super commonly played out 

frankly the more we over-simply onto one narrowly focused area I think our findings get more accurate. Block out the noise, ya know 

Edited Monday at 12:19 AM by Thorner

[mjd1001]

4 minutes ago, Thorner said:

Which conclusion can we go with here that alleviates the most amount of a 28th place roster from the blame equation? 

Is there any way we can get this all on UPL and Power?

Asking for a friend 

- - - 

How narrow can we get this scapegoat? 
 

im looking to work backwards from, “most of the roster is set”. I think we can comfortably attribute our bottom of the barrel record to one or two position of need, no? I like the idea one guy changes the entire fortunes of a team - it’s super commonly played out 

Its not a narrow scapegoating on my part.  Its not just UPL and Power. Its UPL. Its portions of the D-group, and a LOT of how the forwards play and support the defense. Not to mention neutral zone play.

I think a huge part of this is on UPL, but not all of it.  As per my prior post, The entire 4th line has been bad in terms of supporting the defensemen. Kulich, Peterka, Quinn and even Benson aren't helping the 'goals allowed' portion of things.  And of course, the D-group.

Everyone needs to contribute to keeping the puck out of the net, but I'd say 4 or 5 of your defense group are average or below average, and close to 1/2 of your forwards need to be a lot better.

[Doohickie]

3 hours ago, Doohickie said:

Watched a replay of the Krebs goal and you can see he delayed just a bit at the blue line to make sure he was onsides.  Good hockey IQ there.

[GASabresIUFAN]

27 minutes ago, Thorner said:

5 on 5 isn’t “even strength”

am I arguing with AI?

”their forwards score a lot, therefore they aren’t contributing to poor D”

your conclusions are Swiss cheese

Your argument is simply wrong.  The Sabres, updated for today, have the 3rd most GF on 5 on 5 at 166 and 5th most at 171 (5 on 5, 4 on 4 & 3 on 3).  They have allowed 163 GA 5 on 5, and 170 at EV (5 on 5, 4 on 4 & 3 on 3).  That a +1 differential at EV strength.  I have no idea where you got your stats from, but they are wrong.

 

My numbers are from NHL.com

https://www.nhl.com/stats/teams?report=goalsagainstbystrength&reportType=season&seasonFrom=20242025&seasonTo=20242025&gameType=2&page=0&pageSize=50

https://www.nhl.com/stats/teams?report=goalsforbystrength&reportType=season&seasonFrom=20242025&seasonTo=20242025&gameType=2&sort=goalsFor&page=0&pageSize=50

[Thorner]

32 minutes ago, GASabresIUFAN said:

Your argument is simply wrong.  The Sabres, updated for today, have the 3rd most GF on 5 on 5 at 166 and 5th most at 171 (5 on 5, 4 on 4 & 3 on 3).  They have allowed 163 GA 5 on 5, and 170 at EV (5 on 5, 4 on 4 & 3 on 3).  That a +1 differential at EV strength.  I have no idea where you got your stats from, but they are wrong.

 

My numbers are from NHL.com

https://www.nhl.com/stats/teams?report=goalsagainstbystrength&reportType=season&seasonFrom=20242025&seasonTo=20242025&gameType=2&page=0&pageSize=50

https://www.nhl.com/stats/teams?report=goalsforbystrength&reportType=season&seasonFrom=20242025&seasonTo=20242025&gameType=2&sort=goalsFor&page=0&pageSize=50

Oy vey 

https://www.naturalstattrick.com/teamtable.php?fromseason=20242025&thruseason=20242025&stype=2&sit=ev&score=all&rate=n&team=all&loc=B&gpf=410&fd=&td=

Sabres are 19th in even strength gf%

- - - 

I don’t have an argument, I am simply stating facts contrary to your imaginationland 

Edited Monday at 01:34 AM by Thorner

[Thorner]

6th from top GF, even strength

5th from bottom GA, even strength 

19th in GF%

[GASabresIUFAN]

34 minutes ago, Thorner said:

6th from top GF, even strength

5th from bottom GA, even strength 

19th in GF%

EV is defined as situations in which both team have the same number of skaters (not players) on the ice.  Therefore the only EV situations are 5 on 5, 4 on 4 and 3 on 3.  That's it.

According to the NHL these are the Sabres stats in those situations

The Sabres are +3 (166/163) 5 on 5, + 1 (4/3) 4 on 4, and -3 in OT (1/4) 3 on 3 ).  Thus 171/170 at EV. 

I have no idea in what situations that Naturalstattrick is adding 19 goals to the Sabres totals to get to 190 or 29 goals against to get to their 199.  

However, you are basing your argument on incorrect data.  The only way I can see getting close to their numbers is adding in empty net situations, but those are not EV situations by it's traditional definition.  The Sabres have allowed a league worst 24 goals when a team pulls their goalie.  The NHL describes those situations as 6 on 5 however.  

Naturalstattrick is a great site, but you have to check your data.

Edited Monday at 02:11 AM by GASabresIUFAN

[Thorner]

14 minutes ago, GASabresIUFAN said:

EV is defined as situations in which both team have the same number of skaters (not players) on the ice.  Therefore the only EV situations are 5 on 5, 4 on 4 and 3 on 3.  That's it.

According to the NHL these are the Sabres stats in those situations

The Sabres are +3 (166/163) 5 on 5, + 1 (4/3) 4 on 4, and -3 in OT (1/4) 3 on 3 ).  Thus 171/170 at EV. 

I have no idea in what situations that Naturalstattrick is adding 19 goals to the Sabres totals to get to 190 or 29 goals against to get to their 199.  

However, you are basing your argument on incorrect data.  The only way I can see getting close to their numbers is adding in empty net situations, but those are not EV situations by it's traditional definition.  The Sabres have allowed a league worst 24 goals when a team pulls their goalie.  The NHL describes those situations as 6 on 5 however.  

Naturalstattrick is a great site, but you have to check your data.

lol leave me alone 

take it up with the official definitions committee. You are just guessing at what the discrepancy is 

Edited Monday at 02:24 AM by Thorner

[LGR4GM]

2 hours ago, mjd1001 said:

After 8 goals, the Sabres are now 8th overall out of 32 teams in offense (3.23 goals per game).

2nd in the league in even strength regulation time goals.

Tage tied for 3rd in the league in goals scored.

 

If only the defense/goaltending were better...but they have not been.

Sabres are the 2nd worst in goals per game allowed.

38 goalies have played over 30 games this season. UPL is 34th out of 38th in GAA and 36th out of 38 in save percentage.

And Adams has given 0 indication he plans to overhaul defense or goaltending. 

[HumanSlinky39]

9 minutes ago, LGR4GM said:

And Adams has given 0 indication he plans to overhaul defense or goaltending. 

Can't block the kids. TRuSt ThE pRoCeSs.

[Thorner]

Also what does it matter @GASabresIUFANall you are doing is strawmanning. The even strength defence is indisputably atrocious. Attributing it all to the smallest portion of the team possible is absurd. It’s 1 dimensional thinking is almost entirely based on the fact you tailor your opinions based on your eagerness for the lineup to be “penciled in”. You do it every year, listing out why the lineups are finished and there’s no room for additions, the desire for it to be finalized and determined so strong it now pervades your analysis of the actual roster imo. You want to ignore the affect the forwards have on team defence because it’s convenient, there’s no room..etc..To the tune of incongruent opinions. Adams is a terrible, howdy doody GM, but 95% of the roster is A-ok. 

dude, It’s all set. It’ll be a run back. We are at the cap, everyone is signed, forwards are set, Adams is totally awful yet the roster is untouchable, and let’s just talk about the one d man we should set that’ll take us from 28th to 5th

Edited Monday at 05:10 AM by Thorner

[Thorner]

The fact we are in the bottom 5 of the league for assist total from our leading forward doesn’t matter either, having a really good playmaker wouldn’t help the power play 

don’t touch the forwards of a bottom of the league team, in a league where *playoff teams* add at the deadline, and in the offseason 

the Buffalo Sabres don’t need to add a forward

just “fix”’the power play. Roster addition? lol no, just fix it, silly 

we know Adams isn’t touching the goalies. So, power partner? 

wait, trade power. Addition by subtraction. Draft a D man and trade for his partner 

Edited Monday at 02:42 AM by Thorner

[GASabresIUFAN]

1 minute ago, Thorner said:

To the tune of incongruent opinions. Adams is a terrible, howdy doody GM, but 95% of the roster is A-ok. 

I've never said that.  In fact I've said quite the opposite.  However, I'm also a realist.  Adams is the GM and I've been posting (and I've said this as well) that Adams game plan is to keep the forwards pretty much as is.  Adams made that clear when he re-signed Zucker and Greenway and stated JJP is part of the core.  

As I pointed out in @dudacek thread about next season, the Sabres could run back the entire current roster except Reimer (with Levi replacing him), as all 23 possible players are either under contract or RFAs and would cost about 96 million.

I posted in that thread that our best hope for positive change was to trade either Byram or Power, trade Clifton and buyout Samuelsson so that we'd have about 15-16 million to spend on real D men.  I also wished for a top 6 playmaker, but said that acquiring one wasn't realistic given our current cap and Adams' obvious plan for next season.  

None of that changes your utilization of incorrect stats 🙂

[Thorner]

7 minutes ago, GASabresIUFAN said:

I've never said that.  In fact I've said quite the opposite.  However, I'm also a realist.  Adams is the GM and I've been posting (and I've said this as well) that Adams game plan is to keep the forwards pretty much as is.  Adams made that clear when he re-signed Zucker and Greenway and stated JJP is part of the core.  

As I pointed out in @dudacek thread about next season, the Sabres could run back the entire current roster except Reimer (with Levi replacing him), as all 23 possible players are either under contract or RFAs and would cost about 96 million.

I posted in that thread that our best hope for positive change was to trade either Byram or Power, trade Clifton and buyout Samuelsson so that we'd have about 15-16 million to spend on real D men.  I also wished for a top 6 playmaker, but said that acquiring one wasn't realistic given our current cap and Adams' obvious plan for next season.  

None of that changes your utilization of incorrect stats 🙂

The stats are correct - your explanation of the discrepancy isn’t accurate.

Edited Monday at 02:49 AM by Thorner

[GASabresIUFAN]

1 minute ago, Thorner said:

The stats are correct - your explanation of the discrepancy isn’t accurate. 

Please show me the error in my math!  Please show me what situations are considered EV besides 5 on 5, 4 on 4 and 3 on 3.  

[Thorner]

Also you are continually moving the goalposts to the point of a disingenuous conversation. Every time I press you on why the forwards aren’t good enough you turn tail and run to “it’s just what Adams will do”.

So you agree they aren’t good enough? Ok, good. Your thinking imo is most informed by a desire to consider the roster locked in 

yes, it’s locked in

please, spend all year bitching about how Adams sucks after explaining why most of the roster shouldn’t be addressed 

- - - 

your plan is to trade a former first overall pick at a low point in value, essentially repeating the mistakes of the past and ensuring we get ripped off 

cause he’s soft 

Edited Monday at 05:12 AM by Thorner

[GASabresIUFAN]

1 minute ago, Thorner said:

Also you are continually moving the goalposts to the point of a disingenuous conversation. Every time I press you on why the forwards aren’t good enough you turn tail and run to “it’s just what Adams will do” lol. So you agree they aren’t good enough? Ok, good. In truth, it’s accurate that your thinking is most informed by a desire to consider the roster locked in 

If you are asking me if I think our top 9 forwards are good enough to be a playoff team.  I do.  Do I think they could be better.  I do.  Do I think they are good at the two way hockey.  I think some are adequate, some like McLeod are good and some aren't.  Some have improved dramatically (like TNT) and some of the kids (Benson and Kulich) work hard at it and are getting better.  

As I've said.  The primary issues with this team is bad defense and goaltending and poor special teams.  The special teams is solvable with better coaching and the acquisition of better defensemen.  It's really that simple.  We fix the defense, this team should contend for the playoffs next season.

I fully understand that you want to blow it all up.  However that's not realistic and I don't think it's necessary.  

[Thorner]

5 minutes ago, GASabresIUFAN said:

If you are asking me if I think our top 9 forwards are good enough to be a playoff team.  I do.  Do I think they could be better.  I do.  Do I think they are good at the two way hockey.  I think some are adequate, some like McLeod are good and some aren't.  Some have improved dramatically (like TNT) and some of the kids (Benson and Kulich) work hard at it and are getting better.  

As I've said.  The primary issues with this team is bad defense and goaltending and poor special teams.  The special teams is solvable with better coaching and the acquisition of better defensemen.  It's really that simple.  We fix the defense, this team should contend for the playoffs next season.

I fully understand that you want to blow it all up.  However that's not realistic and I don't think it's necessary.  

I don’t want to blow it up at all 

[Scottysabres]

45 minutes ago, Thorner said:

I don’t want to blow it up at all 

There is no reason to. Address the defensemen deficiencies, sign and/or trade for what veteran presence defense and forward ranks with consistent 60 minute game play in mind.

The team is young, lacks that veteran presence. Zucker and Greenway are a start, get 3 or 4 more. Offensive ability isn’t lacking, defensive play and consistency are imho.

[PerreaultForever]

2 minutes ago, Scottysabres said:

There is no reason to. Address the defensemen deficiencies, sign and/or trade for what veteran presence defense and forward ranks with consistent 60 minute game play in mind.

The team is young, lacks that veteran presence. Zucker and Greenway are a start, get 3 or 4 more. Offensive ability isn’t lacking, defensive play and consistency are imho.

Adams made the team too young, that's his ultimate failure. It's a self fulfilling prophecy. 

But right now he's telling Terry, "did you see that, we beat the best team, we're the best now."