Seeing the positive
Frequent reader and commenter Chris sent me this analysis in an e-mail and I thought it was too good to pass up. Sadly, he didn’t give me a title, so I had to wing that part. His unedited thoughts follow below:
Note: All analysis was written Tuesday afternoon, prior to Wednesday’s results.
I wrote this as a corollary to Kevin’s great post on Ryan Miller. I’ve also (sort of) spilled the beans on my opinion in the comments section below. But Kevin agreed to run my full argument (harangue?) to his great credit. I found it quite surprising that with all the Sabre coverage out there Kevin’s analysis wasn’t readily available. Major kudos for providing. I know I thought I was getting just below Miller-esque goaltending in March. I was wrong, especially over the last four games.
We were a playoff team before we lost our two best players. Our goal differential on February 8, correcting for shoot-outs, was +8. If you extrapolate that over an entire season, you are looking at a +12 or +13 team. I’ll get to why I think that’s extremely important.
According to sportsclubsstats.com, we had a 78% chance of making the playoffs after Vanek went down in early February after we lost to the Sens 3-1. We were at 75% when Miller went down on February 23rd v. the Rags. Those are clearly our two best players. Vanek had 33 goals at that point. Now think: if Pittsburgh lost Malkin and Crosby for 10 games, would they be in the position they were in? How about the Canes with Ward and Staal? Or the Panthers with Horton or the Devils with Brodeur – wait, don’t use those two. Maybe we can use Rags with Gomez and Lundqvist, instead. Either way, you see my point. It’s hard to overcome a loss of talent of that caliber. IT’S NOT AN EXCUSE, but performance suffers when players get hurt. Depth gets tested. The adrenaline wears off as the new guys get used to the grind. The weaknesses get exploited. Max gets played.
Could we be tougher? Absolutely. Does Pommer piss me off? Hell yes. Before the injuries, we knew this was a playoff team, but not a real Cup contender. Now, after 15 games, including 9 without our two best players, we need to blow it up? What? When you win, you look for success and tend to look inward for the reasons for your success (We have talented players. We play hard). When you lose, these flaws tend to be magnified. And we look for blame to be placed. But I am not quite ready to throw the baby out with the bathwater. What if the Sabres were, dare I say it, unlucky, with both injuries AND goal distribution?
Goal differential, Eastern Conference, places 4 through 11, through 3/24:
(minus one for each SO win and plus one for each SO loss):
Philly +27 (+2) = +29
Car +4 (+2) = +6
Pitt +11 (even) = +11
Rangers -11 (-5) = -16
Montreal -6 (-1) = -7
Panthers -6 (+5) = -1
Sabres +4 (-2) = +2
Sens -14 (+2) = -12
The Sabres are a middle of the pack team in goal differential. Certainly better considerably better than the #7 and #8 seeds and about even with the #9. Over the season goal differential is a great measure of a team. But it is meaningless from game to game. Unless you have some reasons WHY a team’s goal differential may be impacted. Perhaps it could be impacted if their two best players were hurt?
In baseball, your Pythagorean expectation is the formula used to determine how many games a team should win based on number of runs scored in comparison to runs against (runs scored^2/(runs scored ^2 * runs allowed ^2)). Teams with high expectation tend to do better than those who don’t – as preventing runs scored and scoring runs correlate pretty highly with actual won/loss record. Throw in some math magic I don’t want to explain, and you get Pythagorean wins. I believe Goal Differential in hockey can provide the same sort of measurement. And yes, sometimes in baseball, lucky teams (think the 2007 DBags, for example) who have negative run differentials make the playoffs. The Rangers and Habs are similarly lucky as even with a goal differentials in the negative, they have been “successful†(the Rangers, with a 10-5 SO record – are amazingly lucky).
Counting Buffalo’s SO losses and wins as ties and OT W/L as W/L we get the following:
Through February 8:
GF: 156 GA: 148
Actual record: 22-23-10 Record %age: .4889
Pythag record: 23.7 – 21.3 (with 10 “tiesâ€)
Sabres were actually a bit unlucky through the early part of the season. But not bad enough to keep them from 7th place and the perception they were a playoff team. We were untough then? Sure. Did we have defensive troubles then? Probably. But we weren’t bad. We weren’t talking about blowing everything up.
February 8th through March 23rd:
GF: 49 GA: 55
Actual record: 5-9-3 Record %age: .3571
Pythagorean record: 6.2-7.8-3 Pythag%age: =.4424
Being outscored by 6 goals in 17 games should leader to about a negative 1.6 game spread. But Buffalo has gone a negative 4 in wins and losses. Loss of talent + bad luck = 10th place, 5 points out.
But let’s go back to before the Vanek and Miller injuries to February when the Sabres were assumed (correctly IMHO) to a be a playoff team. Comfortably in 7th place, the mood was more about fine tuning for a playoff run, not packing it in and openly musing if LWL (Life Without Lindy) is a future course of action. The Sabres were 28-21-6 at that time Vanek went down. They went 6-7-1 until he came back. All things being equal, they appear to have missed Vanek, but had sufficient depth to deal with the loss of him (small sample argument acknowledged). In Miller’s absence, the Sabres have gone 3-6-2. One might term that catastrophic, especially in March. And the damage has been done explicitly in the last 4 games – after Vanek came back. The Sabres are 0-3-1 and -6 in goal differential. If they split those games and get 4 points instead of 1, they are only two points out of a spot and we aren’t talking about shutting down the season.
I think we have to acknowledge that, via Kevin’s argument, we really miss our starting goaltender. Lalime and Tellqvist are fine back-ups – but they are simply NOT sustainable over anything more than spot starts. What else does this imply? The Sabres have scored goals, but haven’t had them hit evenly. That is bad **luck**. Also, we can infer that Lord Darth made the right move locking up Miller for the long term. His improvement over the last couple years now makes that contract look like, at worst, fair value. At best, it’s going to be a frickin’ bargain over the next 5 years.
The temptation in rough times over small sample sizes (the last four games) is to want to change everything to get better. Do we need more toughness? I believe we do. Is it worth dumping everyone except four players and start rebuilding? Maybe not. The track record of our front office as a cool zone of analysis rather than a boiling cauldron of emotion comforts me. This rough spot of bad luck (injuries, goal scoring) won’t force them into doing anything too incredibly rash. Because, after the purge in 2007 that caused the loss of Driere, Regier and Quinn have been right MUCH more than they have been wrong.
No Comments
-
Advertisement
-
Latest
-
Brian Castner
Latest: Al Gore as Skeptic -
Sports Road Trip
Latest: Buffalo’s Canalside – OKC Has Lessons To Offer -
Tom Schuh
Latest: Hometown News at Noon: Fri 11/20/09 -
The Goose's Roost
Latest: I Blame the Spotlight Guy -
Christina Abt
Latest: Question of the Day.....Jim Kelly for Coach??? -
BfloBlog
Latest: Kevin Maguire Open Thread: Bruins as Sabres -
Marc Odien
Latest: Calls for Parks Usage Input from Community Groups -
Eric Saldanha
Latest: Friday YouTube Nugget -
Bands That Jam
Latest: Phish | 11.18.09 | Detroit -
Colin Eager
Latest: Toilet Tuna
-
You need to log in to vote
The blog owner requires users to be logged in to be able to vote for this post.
Alternatively, if you do not have an account yet you can create one here.
Powered by Vote It Up
Who got competent analysis in my BfloBlog? You two are killing me today. Bring back The Cockfight!
This post is the Officer Barbrady of Sabres blog posts.
“Move along, nothing to see here, this team is perfectly fine.”
This is a team with borderline playoff talent which is prone to streaks of indifferent play. The Sabres also have a coach who fails to consistently get his message through to the players. Would they be a shoo-in for the playoffs if Miller hadn’t sat out 11 games? Probably. Big deal, I guess that’s something to celebrate. I’d also like to point out if they even remotely gave a shit in 11 of their other losses, they wouldn’t be in this spot either.
/Mister Negative
This post is the Jessica Alba of Sabres blog posts.
Excellent.
One nit to pick though:
“Actual record: 5-9-3 Record %age: .3571
Pythagorean record: 6.2-7.8-3 Pythag%age: =.4424
Being outscored by 6 goals in 17 games should leader to about a negative 1.6 game spread. But Buffalo has gone a negative 4 in wins and losses. Loss of talent + bad luck = 10th place, 5 points out.”
Yes, there should be a -1.6 game spread and there’s a -4 actual spread. But look what that comes out to: Just ONE more win, from 5-9 to 6-8 (rounding, of course). Unless we miss the playoffs by two or less, it’s not even a big deal.
I should just stop watching games and buy a calculator.
I haven’t done the research, but in a discussion with Tom Luongo he mentioned to me that he thought Ryan Miller was, in addition to being a fine goaltender, our #1 penalty killer.
The loss to the Phlyers was the worst because we gave up two PP goals to the 25th ranked PP in the league (small sample size alert). I am thinking of looking to see if that extended out over his absence. Obviously hockey is a team game. But if there is some significance – and the sample sizes are large enough (55 with Ryan, 15 without him) perhaps there can be some hay made.
Chris, emotional aspects of hockey can be debated – but from my perspective, I can’t quantify it. I can only assume that players give 100% every night because they are paid to do so. And I can’t pretend to know what Jochen Hecht is thinking about on Wednesday night in February as much as you can. We can only guess they don’t care. Don’t forget – in every battle, the opponent also gets a vote. And the game is full of luck and bounces. The goal (ahem) is to put yourself in a position to be successful over the long term. Losing your two best players for extended periods of time hampers that outlook. Literally, Miller and Vanek are irreplaceable. There’s no one like them Portland. And you can’t trade for them, either.
On your comment about borderline talent: The Sabres are committed. They’ve done what we’ve asked them to do – be proactive signing your talent earlier. If you don’t like Vanek (age 25), Pommer (26), Roy (25) and Miller (28) – pick another team (total cap hit for 4 players = $22M). If you’re angry about the rest of the team’s make up, that’s legitimate and we can argue about that. But it’s clear the franchise has made a commitment to the guys its developed. And with guys like Kennedy, Funk, Sekera, Ennis, and Gerbe getting ready to play for the Sabres, it’s clear what the model is…pay your talent and hope for the young guys to develop into stars while you’re paying them while they are arb eligible. Sometimes it works: Think Paille in 07-08. Sometimes it doesn’t. See Paille 08-09. But that’s how we will compete. The growth patterns of players like Paille, Staffy and Sekera are rarely straightline. You can just hope you put them in the right situations where they can succeed.
Matt, on your comment, expected points have a bigger influence over the long term than game to game. We should’ve had about 3 more points based on GD (that’s a guess, but it’s close). 85/83/81 is better than 85/83/78, no?
Actually, now that I look at the first part again as well, we should have had not 3 POINTS as you just said, but 3 WINS more based on expected. 85/84/83 is even better
By the way, as a baseball stat junkie myself, the Pythagorean records are most influenced by two things: Blowouts, and the quality of the bullpen (or, winning one-run games; teams that have a great record in one-run games normally come out as “lucky”)
Well, it’s no different in hockey, really, just replace “bullpen” with “goaltending”. As he already said, the Rangers can definitely be considered “lucky” with all the SO wins this season. But there’s also been a lot of times where Buffalo has been just blown out or otherwise didn’t show up. That also affects negatively on the expected record.
Kate, a quote I thought appropriate from Will Leitch’s deadspin column last Thursday, on predicting the NCAA Tournament:
http://deadspin.com/5170754/nobody-knows-nothing-and-this-makes-everybody-smart
“My favorite tip, though, came from a man named Brad Carlin, a professor of biostatistics at the University of Minnesota. He said, essentially, you’re better off not watching games at all. “The best handicappers are people who don’t watch games,” Carlin told me. “The brain is one of the least effective predictive machines we have.”
Precisely because we are so emotional (Buffalo fans emotional? No way.) we are the worst people to evaluate this team on a game to game basis. The long term view (Darth’s view) is what I am looking at. It’s easy to get spooked after a 4 game losing streak. But teams that operate in the short term often times regret those decisions.
Matt, agree. And 10-2 wins don’t help, either. But goals are goals. We still scored them.
I guess I should just admit that I am suspicious of numbers that try to convince me that what I’ve witnessed first hand isn’t true. Until you can find some stats that DO measure things like effort, and passion, and the influence of a coach, this type of analysis will feel hollow to me.
But for the record, my instincts mostly agree with your final conclusion. I don’t think any core players should be traded away (I wouldn’t have re-signed Connolly, but whatever). I think Lindy should be fired, or at the very least, the players should believe in their hearts that their shitty play will lead directly to Lindy losing his job eventually. I think the absence of that organization-wide accountability has contributed mightily to our current predicament.
Kate,
I forgot about Connolly. That’s 26.5M for 5 players over the next two years ($29.5M if you add Hecht…and that’s just forwards and a goalie!). This team has put its money where its mouth is.
“I think the absence of that organization-wide accountability has contributed mightily to our current predicament.”
To what predicament are you referring? Our inability to make the playoffs this year (long term question I thought I answered with this long post)? Or game to game irresponsibilities? And what perscriptions would you offer to as, say, “Chief Accountable Officer” to lessen that predicament?
I can only assume that players give 100% every night because they are paid to do so.
I guess we’re watching different teams, in that case.
Also, I feel that goal differential is not as solid a stat as some would contend. For a streaky team like the Sabres who can win a game 10-2 over a shitty Oilers squad one night and lose 5-2 to a good team like the Flames the next, I don’t know how much value I put in the stat. Loading up against shitty teams on an infrequent basis, skews the reliability of the stat, IMO.
I’m not someone who blames the Sabres for losing the talent that they did. Grier didn’t want to stay and I don’t think Drury ever intended to stay in Buffalo. I don’t think the Sabres should have laid the money down to match offers for Briere or Campbell or McKee either. In hindsight, I do wish there had been some way to lock down Dumont rather than Afinogenov, but Max was a solid choice at the time.
I do think that the talent that is signed long term here is middling (aside from Vanek and Miller) and the team is what it should be, a middle of the pack team with a chance to make the playoffs each year. Maybe one year they’ll get lightning in a bottle and make a run. That’s the strategy and one we should be aware of and get comfortable with.
I’m not really sure what you’re arguing in favor of, frankly. Is your overall point that they are qualified to reach a higher level of streaky mediocrity than they have shown in the last couple of weeks? If so, I guess you win.
As a corollary to the post above:
If the Sabres finish in 6th place, does anyone want to “blow the team up”? What about 8th? How about 9th?
Half of the teams in the NHL make the playoffs each year. All other factors being equal, you should expect to make it 50% of the time. Since the lockout the Sabres made it twice, missed once, and look poised to miss again, which is….50%.
The point of all of that above is to say that we’re not at the bottom of the league. Not by a long shot. We’re not Tampa or Atlanta and wanting to make dramatic changes to a team that was in the ECF two straight years followed by two VERY narrow playoff misses seems to be blowing things out of proportion.
We’re likely going to miss the playoffs by 1-3 games. How many fluke goals or funny bounces would it take to correct that? How much more talent do you need to move from 9th place back up to 6th?
Very little, in my opinion.
Also, I generally abhor Mike Schopp on WGR, but he had a somewhat valid point yesterday, why is discussion of letting Lindy go so verboten? Since Hasek left, he has guided the team to two playoff appearances in seven years. If the argument is that he didn’t have enough talent to get there in those five years of no playoffs, shouldn’t we be holding Regier accountable? Or are we going to excuse it because of the Rigas situation? I think it’s a valid discussion to have.
Just thought it was a different way of looking at things.
Ben, this team NEEDS dramatic change though. A change from the 5′7 mighty mites to the 6′3, 225 pound power forwards that are starting to dominate the league again.
Who is advocating “blowing the team up”? Putting words into the mouth of others is a cheap way to advance an argument.
The Sabres are locked into long term contracts with players of middling value who do not display the level of effort or determination needed to be successful night in and night out in this league. What can they do about it? Sadly, little can be done. You think Jochen Hecht or Henrik Tallinder has trade value equivalent to their salary level? You can’t trade a pile of expensive or mildly talented third liner crap for a top notch power forward or gritty veteran leadership.
However, the Sabres might find a solid market for Pominville if he’s paired up with a young player with a higher ceiling, like Funk or Weber. Keep in mind that teams across the league will be looking to dump expensive veterans this winter as their cap situations grow increasingly dire. The Sabres are not in a position to really capitalize on that with $48MM committed next year to 17 players.
Blowing up the team is not really an option, nor is anyone calling for it as that is not the style of current management.
Matt, a simple test to see if you’re right is to compare the weights and heights of the top 30 goal/point scorers in the NHL in 2005 with 2008-09 (and maybe some other years, too). If there is a statistically significant rise in the size of players getting a larger share of the points, then perhaps you are correct. But don’t forget – Derek Roy – all 5′8″, 175lbs of him – still manages to pot 30/40/70. Tim Connolly and Mats Sunding average 1 ppg and aren’t known for their sizes, either. Methinks it’s a bit more complicated than that – and that our brains observing these things are own worst enemy.
@12 – “I’m not really sure what you’re arguing in favor of, frankly.”
I hate repeating myself, but I will do it for your benefit in summarized form.
1.) The Sabres, as currently constructed, are a playoff caliber team. This was not in doubt on Feb. 8th.
2.) Our team suffered two catastrophic injuries to our top two players that dramatically altered our fortunes (BUT NOT OUR EXPECTATIONS) during March and April.
3.) The vox populi has underestimated the effect of losing your top 2 players for an extended period of time, thinking that those players are more easily replaced than they are/were.
5.) The result of that underestimation has led to the construction of remedies that are quite frankly rash, unrealistic and hopefully unimplementable.
Luck (injuries, outcomes) plays a larger role in team fortune than we care or prefer to admit. It doesn’t make sense to our eyes, which tell us the better team “hustled more” or “cared more” – both of which are unquantifiable (unless the hit number correlates strongly with wins and losses, which I am not sure of. Matt S.- now there’s a project for us.). Now, we can start to measure these things (I bet the Sabres are!). Bill Belicheck has a metric he uses called “loafs” which measures a player’s lack of hustle on game plays. This, over the long term, helps management make better decisions regarding their assets.
The Sabres definitely have enough talent to be a playoff team. I don’t disagree (even though that comment wasn’t to me). And up until both Miller and Vanek got hurt, they were both having career years. I completely agree with your last paragraph there Chris, except for one thing. Hits are probably the most subjective stat in hockey. Hit totals vary from team to team, arena to arena.
Most importantly, hitting does NOT necessarily equal “physical play”. Physical play is following your man into the corner and digging for the puck instead of just peeling off. Physical play is going into the front of the net area instead of playing the perimeter (I’m looking at you, Pominville). Derek Roy plays bigger than his size, I definitely agree with that. At least he’s willing to go in front with the puck.
There have been numerous comments recommending a large amount of changes needed to improve this team – on the Buffalo News site as well as in this one.
This post started me off Chris:
http://bfloblog.wnymedia.net/?p=3725
#16, advocating us to get bigger, is made in that same vein. But I digress.
“The Sabres are locked into long term contracts with players of middling value who do not display the level of effort or determination needed to be successful night in and night out in this league.”
I just made this up: ((Current results + Future Expected Results) / (Contract size * Contract length)) = Value. We can all agree high talent and results (goals, assists, +/-, goals against average) are good. But in today’s NHL, value goes down as players get better because of the aggressive market in paying for special players. Jason Pominville with 78 points making $1.75M is VALUE. Jason Pominville with 50 points making $5M…not so much. But in the NHL, we have to pay for both current AND future (expected) results. With guaranteed contracts, no less.
Obviously this little equation doesn’t value experience or toughness (unquantifiable at this time) or age (interesting variable).
Where we can argue all day, Chris, is VALUE. Is Derek Roy providing VALUE at $4m/year (yes). Is Jason Pominville at $5M? How about Hecht at $3M? These are the questions we should be asking – while also asking whether or not they can provide more or less value in the future. If your GM isn’t getting you value, THEN you hold him accountable. If your coach is getting talent and not producing RESULTS – you hold him accountable. All you can do is set the table with the resoruces you have available. After that – it’s the coach, the players and the system.
In 05-06 we had the most VALUE laden roster in the NHL over the last 7 years (check out the value of the players on that team ($40M or so) compared with today. That roster makes over $80M in 08-09 cap dollars). And we still lost. So it’s not a magic bullet (just ask the Oakland A’s). But we have limited resources. You do what you can.
Well if they are a playoff team with Miller they need to prove it now that he’s back and go 7-2 over the last nine games. That would bring them to 92 points and is good enough to make it in most years.
“The Sabres are not in a position to really capitalize on that with $48MM committed next year to 17 players.”
Thus contributing to my point that the Sabres see themselves as on the upswing (a point I agree with). The team was not built to win the Cup this year (we knew that in February and guessed it in November) But over the next 2-3 years? Absolutely. SO – those complaining that we need to make drastic changes – just yelling into the wind.
Aceface: you’re asking for a lot for a team that we’ve identified as a only a little above average when its superstars are completely healthy.
While possible, I don’t think most of us are expecting a 7-2 finish with dates @WSH, v. NJ, v. Det and @ BOS still looming on the schedule. Remember, the opposition gets a vote. In addition, we have to jump not only one franchise, but two (both of whom earned two more points last night) in painful fashion.
That all being said, I am at the front of the line hoping we bury the Leafs tonight and stick in Montreal’s ass tomorrow night.
Aceface!!!
(this is Afino – good to see you around the Bfloblog!)
@19:
Funny how you bring up the Oakland A’s when the Hockey News said Regier was “the Billy Beane of hockey”.
To what predicament are you referring? Our inability to make the playoffs this year (long term question I thought I answered with this long post)? Or game to game irresponsibilities? And what perscriptions would you offer to as, say, “Chief Accountable Officer†to lessen that predicament?
The predicament is that we are about to miss the playoffs for the fifth time in seven seasons, and the prescription (in my opinion) is to fire either Darcy or Lindy.
I agree, that Ryan Miller and Thomas Vanek are the difference between a mediocre team in the playoffs and a mediocre team out of the playoffs. I disagree with you (and the Sabres) that this team is on the upswing.
I would, of course, love to be wrong about that.
[Cue Belushi Animal House speech]
We win tonite, and get at least a point tomorrow and we could be within 3 points of a playoff spot w/7 games remaining.
[Belushi Animal House speech fades]
Pete, I hate to call games must win, but we need to get 2 points tonight AND get a regulation win tomorrow at the Forum.
If that scenario comes to pass…
M-85/F-83/B-82. We are still in 10th, but are only 3 points out and everyone has the same amount of games left.
/Otis! My man!
I can’t wait for BTG to eat his microphone.
I can’t wait for BTG to eat his microphone.
Now THERE’S a rally cry I can get behind.
The predicament is that we are about to miss the playoffs for the fifth time in seven seasons, and the prescription (in my opinion) is to fire either Darcy or Lindy.
And they’ve made the Conference Finals 2 out of 3 (4) years since the lockout. That’s better than every team not named the Red Wings and Ducks.
You’re really going to blame Darcy and Lindy for the years before the lockout when a) they were forced to trade Hasek b) the owners were arrested for fraud and the league took control of the team c) things were so bad that the team was close to folding d) the initial candidate for purchasing the team was highly suspect and there was a chance he’d move the team e) the team spent two seasons making the future of the Bills look as rock solid as the Dallas Cowboys f) the lockout hit just as the team was coming out of the financial black hole? Was any of that not supposed to effect the organization and the players?
Is there seriously anyone in Buffalo who is not a fucking negative nancy? This team is incredibly lucky to still exist. The Sabres were nearly SMU’ed and yet they’re still here, entertaining us, giving us something to talk about, to get excited about, to argue about. The organization as it exists today has given us two memorable runs through the playoffs (in only 3 years!) in a league that is still finding it’s way, still trying to find that winning formula. (Just look at the curse of the Cup losers since the LO.)
They hit on the initial formula but now that it has evolved you can’t possibly expect them to blow it up and change everything in one or two years. And they’ve done all of this without being handed two of the top 5 players in the league like another team left for dead. (A team that has had 2 #1 overalls and 2 #2s in the last 6 years yet has struggled just the same as the Sabres.)
I agree with a lot of your points, 289. I love the Sabres, I’m incredibly grateful that they are in Buffalo. I love having them to talk and argue about. (That’s why I’m here.) And you’re right, I shouldn’t discount the recent success of the team.
But I disagree strongly that believing Darcy and/or Lindy should be fired makes me a negative nelly. I think a fresh voice in the locker room would do wonders for the team that we have right now. I think that’s a pretty positive outlook, actually. I’m not arguing that Darcy or Lindy really deserve to be fired- I’m arguing that sometimes change is good.
Since you brought up the Penguins- look what they’ve done since their coaching change. Yeah, they have a lot more fire power in their line-up than the Sabres, but difference between the pre-Blysma Pens and the post Blysma is stark.
“They hit on the initial formula but now that it has evolved you can’t possibly expect them to blow it up and change everything in one or two years.”
Well, they did that by letting certain players leave that wanted to stay and doling out questionable contracts to guys like Tim Connolly and Jason Pominfail.
And you really didn’t think the NHL would eventually lax off the obstruction rules (for the 47th time) and allow big, slow, prodding, trapping players and styles to flourish again?? Because with the exception of transcendant superstars like Malkin and Ovie and Crosby, that’s what’s happened. Again. Now Buffalo is back behind the times, still drafting small forwards in a big man’s game.
You’re right. We’re so much better off than 5-10 years ago it’s not even funny. I’m very thankful we have a team here, and we’re being negative because we DON’T WANT OUR TEAM TO LOSE ANYMORE! That’s all. We CARE, just as much as everyone that’s positive cares. We don’t want to feel like our money’s being wasted every time we head down to Washington Street or for the out-of-towers to pay for Center Ice or for some of us to head to the bar and watch the games.
They blew up a perennial contender two years ago and turned it into a shithole, it’s just too bad you can’t do the reverse as quickly.
Chris, this was awesome. I love it when people realise that events can be quantified, and those measurements can then be used to tell you something about the phenomenon you are observing.
@31. True, the Pens’ coaching change has turned out to be a great help, but don’t forget that Gonchar finally came back from injury at the same time (ok, one game earlier). I’m sure their success since then has been due to both factors, but it’s not all just the coaching change.
@32: I disagree that “big, slow, prodding, trapping players” are the types that are flourishing. The shift towards defensive hockey the past couple years has more been the result of new schemes (blocking shots, collapsing around your goal) than because obstruction is back.
Another way to look at it is this:
Zach Parise
5′ 11″
185 lbs
41 goals
88 points
I did say “trapping players AND styles”, for the record.
But yes, Parise is a fine exception to that rule, especially impressive in New Jersey.
but difference between the pre-Blysma Pens and the post Blysma is stark
Pre-Bylsma they were a Stanley Cup finals team that got off to one of their best starts in franchise history only to struggle when the injuries started to rack up. They have the 5th most man games lost to injury this year and their top notch goalie missed a month and struggled even when he first did come back. The Bylsma Penguins have benefited from MAF playing lights out and everyone getting healthy. At one point in January they had 8 starters injured but of course it was Therrien’s fault that this happened.
They blew up a perennial contender two years ago and turned it into a shithole, it’s just too bad you can’t do the reverse as quickly.
A perennial contender that is basically all still here save for 3 players, 3 of which could not fit under the cap without other players being gone. That perennial contender would, as Chris pointed out, cost $80m this year. 2 of which have not played up to their contracts and 1 of which has made Twinklin’ Timmy look like Lou Gehrig.
@34 Fair enough. Let’s fire Lindy AND add a good defenseman.
I actually think the window on getting a good bump out of firing Lindy has closed on this season, so I don’t even know what I’m arguing about anymore.
At one point in January they had 8 starters injured but of course it was Therrien’s fault that this happened.
I never said that anything was Therrien’s fault (or Lindy’s) only that change is good for a locker room. I’m not totally discounting injuries, but maybe something has changed in Bylsma’s system/message to help MAF play lights out.
I am sorry, but I think I am going to cry. Beautiful stuff here. 289, you’re the man.
Matt, you’re still not getting it.
“They blew up a perennial contender two years ago and turned it into a shithole, it’s just too bad you can’t do the reverse as quickly.”
The cap situation was clearly untenable and decisions had to be made. Keeping both Drury and Briere was something, that in hindsight, I am glad didn’t happen. If you want to argue the merits of keeping Jay McKee or JP Dumont and the value both have provided to their current teams what we have gotten from Max, Ales and Timmay – that’s a fair fight.
But the cap, as it is currently designed – is designed to destory dynasties. See the value of the ‘05-06 team v. their current cap values. You just can’t afford to keep everyone around. If you want to argue specific decisions, I am all ears and ready to be critical. But you can’t just say “they ruined it”. NO. There a limited resources and 29 other franchises that have a say in this cartel that is the NHL.
And this current edition of the Sabres is no “shithole”. On February 8th, did you think they were a “shithole”? What occurred between now and then that MIGHT’VE changed your mind? Oh yeah – that 2,500 word monster I just wrote about the injuries to our two best players.
@ #38: “I never said that anything was Therrien’s fault (or Lindy’s) only that change is good for a locker room. I’m not totally discounting injuries, but maybe something has changed in Bylsma’s system/message to help MAF play lights out.”
“Players win games, teams win championships.” – Bill Parcells
Change for change’s sake is a temporary band aid. It worked for the Pens – who were a good team with a lot of injuries before this happened. Has it helped the Habs? No. I’ve already dissected the Rangers luck this season. They are team I would like to play in the first round if I am the Caps or Devils, by the way.
We can study change, Kate. We can look at the teams who changed coaches in mid-season over the last 15 years and determine if firing your coach produces a real tangible benefit. Not to ruin the surprise, but I bet you would find the following: if a team was good before the change, they were probably good after; if a team was bad before the change, there may have been temporary improvement, but they were probably still bad after.
Players (talent) win games. Yes, there’s variance from game to game. But long term – the best teams rise to the top.
Of course we couldn’t keep that team together. There was no way we could have.
Here’s the only problem I have with letting those guys go:
Who’d the Sabres replace them with? Other than fringe NHL’ers like Paille and MacArthur? NO ONE. We couldn’t go out and grab the JP Dumonts of the league at a discounted price because someone else had to let them go for cap purposes?
The defense is a more positive story with guys like Weber and Butler, and is really a non-issue, especially with McKee’s continued injury issues.
Chris, it’s not that I “don’t get it”. Missing the playoffs two years in a row is a “shithole” to me, injuries or not. Missing last year due to the losses we suffered was understandable, even acceptable. But this year, it wasn’t. And you know what’s going to happen? Nothing is going to change this offseason. Instead of signing free agents that might HELP this team, Darcy will give the company line about “well, if we had guys that didn’t get hurt, we’re a contender”, just like the “we re-signed Connolly to a completely insane contract because there was nothing better out there” crap. I can’t stand it and I’m sorry if you think otherwise. We’ll just have to agree to disagree here.
@39: Hell, screw the cap, the Sabres wouldn’t be able to afford that lineup’s current salary period. And neither could 20 other teams for that matter.
I would argue that at a ppg, Connolly’s deal is pretty fair. Can you find me another ppg guy out there that we can sign for $4.5M/year? In his prime, mind you. We are getting Connolly’s 29th and 30th years at that rate.
(ASSUMPTION: HE STAYS HEALTHY acknowledged. Don’t say Darth is conservative or doesn’t take risks. He had to sell this to BTG and the zero losses police.)
I am as frustrated as you are at not making the playoffs (count the words on this page, for chrissakes – I’ve obviously given some thought to this). But this season, there’s a pretty damn good reason why we didn’t. And I know the temptation is say we’ve had two garbage years…but I tend to view things the other way and say, we’ve actually been unlucky and improved a bit. It’s just hidden in the numbers and the injuries.
All other things being equal, a healthy Connolly even providing 70 points per 82 games (not even a PPG pace) is worth $4.5 million. I can’t deny that and won’t try to.
Change for change’s sake is a temporary band aid. It worked for the Pens – who were a good team with a lot of injuries before this happened. Has it helped the Habs? No.
How about the Senators? If the goal was to make the playoffs, according to this post (and I agree), the Sabres really only needed a temporary band aid. I know I’ll be ruffling some Lindy-loving feathers out there by suggesting that making the playoffs this season would have had more value long term than keeping Lindy, but I don’t think it’s an idea that is so offensive it should be discounted. I think making the playoffs was a worthy goal, and one that would have been the difference between a season to build on, and a season to recover from.
Of course, who knows? It’s not too late yet.
Chris, I appreciate what you are saying, and I think we are practically in agreement except for that I think the injuries to Miller and Vanek exposed too much vulnerability to justify “stay the course”, and you think the fall from the playoffs is understandable because of who they lost in the lineup. Is that a fair statement?
At any rate, thanks for an interesting read, and a fun day of conversation.