He answered my PM about fantasy hockey. Said he was super busy with school and work and that the Sabres are/will be a tire fire with the current defense.
- Wetbandit1

Oh man even Gerbe's not optimistic

Oh man even Gerbe's not optimistic
- Sabresfan-365

He's also concerned that we have no backup plan for Vesey.

I really don't understand how all these prediction sites have the Sabres regressing. Yes, they got good, but not spectacular goaltending(tied for 9th in SV%) but that was washed out by their below average shooting percentage(28th), but you can just chalk that up to Kane. But seriously their PDO was only 99.8, good for 21st. It's not like they were the Flames of 2 years ago in which they were tied for 3rd with a 101.4, just .3 off the league leading Rangers. So where is this massive regression coming in?

So even if their SV% drops a bit, as long as they're average in SH% they should be at least as good, if not better. So all else being equal, the Sabres, using last years median SH% of 9.0 that gives the Sabres a 16 goal increase to ~218 goals. Throw in a handful of empty netters, say 5. That would give them 223 GF. Which would actually make them +1 for the year. I swear I didn't even look at the GA until I just typed it. Which is still not spectacular, but puts them right around the league average of 222, and likely a playoff berth. Only 2 teams scored more goals and did not make the playoffs(Flames and Sens and Sens, because, (frank) those guys, twice)

I guess what I'm trying to say is how the hell are people saying they finish dead last in the league?

He's also concerned that we have no backup plan for Vesey.

I really don't understand how all these prediction sites have the Sabres regressing. Yes, they got good, but not spectacular goaltending(tied for 9th in SV%) but that was washed out by their below average shooting percentage(28th), but you can just chalk that up to Kane. But seriously their PDO was only 99.8, good for 21st. It's not like they were the Flames of 2 years ago in which they were tied for 3rd with a 101.4, just .3 off the league leading Rangers. So where is this massive regression coming in?

So even if their SV% drops a bit, as long as they're average in SH% they should be at least as good, if not better. So all else being equal, the Sabres, using last years median SH% of 9.0 that gives the Sabres a 16 goal increase to ~218 goals. Throw in a handful of empty netters, say 5. That would give them 223 GF. Which would actually make them +1 for the year. I swear I didn't even look at the GA until I just typed it. Which is still not spectacular, but puts them right around the league average of 222, and likely a playoff berth. Only 2 teams scored more goals and did not make the playoffs(Flames and Sens and Sens, because, (frank) those guys, twice)

I guess what I'm trying to say is how the hell are people saying they finish dead last in the league?
- Wetbandit1

Its worth pointing out that a lot of the advanced stats models being used to make these predictions are collecting data from the last 3 years. They don't account for player grow especially for those with high potentials and they dont have a filter for "we tanked so hard for 2 years". This is where we get screwed in the predictions because the stats read Jack Eichel as a 2nd line player because his stats have read as such over the last 3 years. Ditto Reinhart. This is obviously not true but its how it reads on paper. The tank argument is a fun one since most stats guys say that because those player were on that team they must be a problem going forward.

Its worth pointing out that a lot of the advanced stats models being used to make these predictions are collecting data from the last 3 years. They don't account for player grow especially for those with high potentials and they dont have a filter for "we tanked so hard for 2 years". This is where we get screwed in the predictions because the stats read Jack Eichel as a 2nd line player because his stats have read as such over the last 3 years. Ditto Reinhart. This is obviously not true but its how it reads on paper. The tank argument is a fun one since most stats guys say that because those player were on that team they must be a problem going forward.
- Sabresfan-365

I should've phrased it a bit differently. How do they still say they're going to regress, even knowing the limitations of their data? Because most of the ones I read had absolutely no "*", just "they'll be terrible". At some point you have to use rational thinking, and not just saying "here are the numbers, my job here is done." But some actual analysis would be nice.

I know a few have said that their data is flawed because it's hard to project a young player. And the tanking thing is the same, but most haven't and writers just look to see where they're projected and say "See? We knew it!" It's just lazy.

Gudas strikes again!!


https://vine.co/v/5gT9D9HMKAE

Its worth pointing out that a lot of the advanced stats models being used to make these predictions are collecting data from the last 3 years. They don't account for player grow especially for those with high potentials and they dont have a filter for "we tanked so hard for 2 years". This is where we get screwed in the predictions because the stats read Jack Eichel as a 2nd line player because his stats have read as such over the last 3 years. Ditto Reinhart. This is obviously not true but its how it reads on paper. The tank argument is a fun one since most stats guys say that because those player were on that team they must be a problem going forward.
- Sabresfan-365

How do Jack and Sam's stats read that way when one was a rookie and the other was basically a rookie? They don't have 3 years of data to go by.

I'm an analyst by trade, and while the Sabres might be bad again due to their D and the questions about goaltending, I'd be seriously questioned about my analysis, and job, if I produced a prediction model based on 3 years of data when it doesn't exist.

Same . That little (frank)er never answered my text or voice mail.
- cabin

He hasn't learned how to do that yet.

I love Risto but if his camp really wants 6.5, then I say let him sit. No way is he worth that. I would rather take the losses early in the year vs buckle at his demands. It would set an ugly precedent for the rest of the youngin's coming up.
- SabreWest

I would consider 6 if he would sign for 8 years.

I would consider 6 if he would sign for 8 years.
- mhp

I agree...

I agree...
- gordong

It's either that or he does a bridge deal.

Speaking of lobster and blow...I miss Gerbe.
- RhinoFan

What happened?

I am the liquor

What happened?
- dadeadhead

does it matter?

I am the liquor
- homiedclown

I drank it........

does it matter?
- homiedclown

Yeah.


He's easy to make fun of.

How do Jack and Sam's stats read that way when one was a rookie and the other was basically a rookie? They don't have 3 years of data to go by.

I'm an analyst by trade, and while the Sabres might be bad again due to their D and the questions about goaltending, I'd be seriously questioned about my analysis, and job, if I produced a prediction model based on 3 years of data when it doesn't exist.
- kingcong39

Exactly so the model is just working off the one year of data it has. It expects jack and sam to produce around what they produced last year +/- 5 or so points. It's a flawed model no doubt and why people shouldn't put much stock into the predictions that have us finishing dead last.

I would consider 6 if he would sign for 8 years.
- mhp

If he signed for 8, I would even go slightly higher to 6.5m with the justification in my head that in 5 - 6 years a 6.5m cap hit for a #1 will be considered very reasonable. One could rationalize the cash payout as follows in a 6.5 avg cap hit:
1 4.5
2 5.0
3 5.5
4 6.25
5 7.0
6 8.0
7 8.0
8 8.5
It would also send the message to Reino and Jack that a long-term commitment to this franchise shall be rewarded reasonably well.

Yeah.


He's easy to make fun of.
- dadeadhead

shouldn't he be making that move to portland by now?

shouldn't he be making that move to portland by now?
- homiedclown

Siberia?

Siberia?
- dadeadhead

- homiedclown

Glad you're all safe and sound Clown.

If he signed for 8, I would even go slightly higher to 6.5m with the justification in my head that in 5 - 6 years a 6.5m cap hit for a #1 will be considered very reasonable. One could rationalize the cash payout as follows in a 6.5 avg cap hit:
1 4.5
2 5.0
3 5.5
4 6.25
5 7.0
6 8.0
7 8.0
8 8.5
It would also send the message to Reino and Jack that a long-term commitment to this franchise shall be rewarded reasonably well.
- IonSabres

Maybe that's what his agent is thinking.

Maybe that's what his agent is thinking.
- mhp

What's up Hopplehead?

What's up Hopplehead?
- dadeadhead

can't complain DD. Same sh!t different day. How are you?

can't complain DD. Same sh!t different day. How are you?
- mhp

Fat, drunk, and stupid.