Speaking of Gustavsson

Jonas Gustavsson is an embarrassment to the position of Goaltender and has no business playing another NHL game in his life. He has an .878 save percentage this year and a .901 in his career. He flops around like a recently caught trout playing out the last moments of his life before dying an agonizing death outside of water. To suggest that his playing style is erratic would be to suggest he has a style at all. If he plays for the AHL Condors it will be at the expense of developing players or those who are actually good at their profession. I expect to never have to watch him ever again, unless the Spengler cup is on TV in 2019.

*Ok, the "extreme prejudice" part was added by me.


Oilers blogger

That if we are going to use data, why just stop at one convenient number? He's facing a ton less high danger shots as other goalies because of the system Bylsma plays.

High Danger shots against

Andersen -192
Talbot -216
Holtby-174
Jones-174

Lehner- 109
- sbroads24

As you know, I am having a very hard time getting my head around a lot of the challenges associated with defining and tracking these stats. So many questions abound.

I do try to be open minded, though, and when I find a new stat, I try to learn something about it.

Here's an interesting quote from:
http://hockeyanalysis.com...to-quantify-shot-quality/

"shot quality is still something we are having a terribly difficult time understanding. It clearly exists and is a significant factor in driving on-ice results but our ability to measure and quantify what leads to higher shot quality is still clearly lacking. Scoring chances as defined by War on Ice might be a step in the right direction but our attempts to quantify it are still a step (or two) behind the coaches [and their eye-test]."

I thought it would be cut and dry this offseason.

Lehner signs bridge deal
Ullmark is taken in the expansion draft
Petersen is signed and becomes the starter for the Amerks
- kingcong39

I honestly believe it's going to be ennis or moulson in the expansion draft. Better options at net will be alvailable, while offense will be grim.

Hopefully neither
- jochfr

I think Clemson pulls off the upset.

As you know, I am having a very hard time getting my head around a lot of the challenges associated with defining and tracking these stats. So many questions abound.

I do try to be open minded, though, and when I find a new stat, I try to learn something about it.

Here's an interesting quote from:
http://hockeyanalysis.com...to-quantify-shot-quality/

"shot quality is still something we are having a terribly difficult time understanding. It clearly exists and is a significant factor in driving on-ice results but our ability to measure and quantify what leads to higher shot quality is still clearly lacking. Scoring chances as defined by War on Ice might be a step in the right direction but our attempts to quantify it are still a step (or two) behind the coaches
- Der Kaiser[and their eye-test]."

The amount of discretion that exists just in whether the person doing the stats for the night thinks something is deemed as a "shot" is enough to question just about anything.

during one of the games that was nationally televised (may have been chicago) the announcers mentioned how good the sabres goalies have been despite getting any goal scoring help and what the record shows.
- IndianaSabresFan

Also during the Chicago game, on the Hawks broadcast the Hawks commentator said that it's tough to score and win games when your best player (Eichel) misses the first 20 games. But, no, it's just us homers who use injuries as an excuse.

Speaking of Gustavsson

Jonas Gustavsson is an embarrassment to the position of Goaltender and has no business playing another NHL game in his life. He has an .878 save percentage this year and a .901 in his career. He flops around like a recently caught trout playing out the last moments of his life before dying an agonizing death outside of water. To suggest that his playing style is erratic would be to suggest he has a style at all. If he plays for the AHL Condors it will be at the expense of developing players or those who are actually good at their profession. I expect to never have to watch him ever again, unless the Spengler cup is on TV in 2019.

*Ok, the "extreme prejudice" part was added by me.


Oilers blogger
- jochfr

Not gonna lie I find myself holding my breath with Lehner pretty often, too.

Eichel and McDavid are job security for Murray and PC
- sbroads24

Seriously its as good as having great blackmail on the owners.

As you know, I am having a very hard time getting my head around a lot of the challenges associated with defining and tracking these stats. So many questions abound.

I do try to be open minded, though, and when I find a new stat, I try to learn something about it.

Here's an interesting quote from:
http://hockeyanalysis.com...to-quantify-shot-quality/

"shot quality is still something we are having a terribly difficult time understanding. It clearly exists and is a significant factor in driving on-ice results but our ability to measure and quantify what leads to higher shot quality is still clearly lacking. Scoring chances as defined by War on Ice might be a step in the right direction but our attempts to quantify it are still a step (or two) behind the coaches
- Der Kaiser[and their eye-test]."

This is all true, but I don't think there is too much discrepancy in 2 on 1's or breakaways which we do not give up a ton of.

I don't think Lehner is a bad goalie, I think as of today, he's average, maybe slightly above because it seems he doesn't give up a ton of softees.

My issue is that goaltending is so easy to find. In fact Chad Johnson, and Anders Nilsson have been better than Lehner, and they cost almost nothing

The amount of discretion that exists just in whether the person doing the stats for the night thinks something is deemed as a "shot" is enough to question just about anything.
- HonkFortheGoose

I think even the average hockey fan knows instinctively what a high-danger versus low-danger shot is. Medium-danger is the hardest, even for the people who watch hockey 24/7. And you can't just divide up the ice and say any shot taken from the middle slot is a high-danger chance because if the goalie is out and square he'll make the save almost all the time. But if there's traffic and he's not quite square and he's sitting back a bit it'll go in almost all the time.

Speaking of Gustavsson

Jonas Gustavsson is an embarrassment to the position of Goaltender and has no business playing another NHL game in his life. He has an .878 save percentage this year and a .901 in his career. He flops around like a recently caught trout playing out the last moments of his life before dying an agonizing death outside of water. To suggest that his playing style is erratic would be to suggest he has a style at all. If he plays for the AHL Condors it will be at the expense of developing players or those who are actually good at their profession. I expect to never have to watch him ever again, unless the Spengler cup is on TV in 2019.

*Ok, the "extreme prejudice" part was added by me.


Oilers blogger
- jochfr

To be fair, this fits Hasek to a T too.

I think even the average hockey fan knows instinctively what a high-danger versus low-danger shot is. Medium-danger is the hardest, even for the people who watch hockey 24/7. And you can't just divide up the ice and say any shot taken from the middle slot is a high-danger chance because if the goalie is out and square he'll make the save almost all the time. But if there's traffic and he's not quite square and he's sitting back a bit it'll go in almost all the time.
- Wetbandit1

More research reveals that this is the definition of a "scoring chance:"

A) In the low danger zone, unblocked rebounds and rush shots only.
B) In the medium danger zone, all unblocked shots.
C) In the high danger zone, all shot attempts (since blocked shots taken here may be more representative of more “wide-open nets”, though we don’t know this for sure.)

http://blog.war-on-ice.co...defining-scoring-chances/

I just don't know how you can analyze and record this at the speed in which the game is played.

I loved the red ones too but always see so much hate here about them. Sure, writing BUFFALO so large on them at the bottom of the sweater sucked, but I loved the bold color change and logo.
- stashu

Overall I liked them, but almost every individual part was awful. A giant puck as the main crest, really? The crossed sabres, ok that's gotta be in there somewhere. Actually the BUFFALO part wasn't too bad, could've been better, but not terrible. My fondest memory of those jerseys was the Jay McKee OT goal against Philly? in the playoffs. Maybe that's why I like them despite not liking much about the jersey design.

More research reveals that this is the definition of a "scoring chance:"

A) In the low danger zone, unblocked rebounds and rush shots only.
B) In the medium danger zone, all unblocked shots.
C) In the high danger zone, all shot attempts (since blocked shots taken here may be more representative of more “wide-open nets”, though we don’t know this for sure.)

http://blog.war-on-ice.co...defining-scoring-chances/

I just don't know how you can analyze and record this at the speed in which the game is played.
- Der Kaiser

If a guy gets a pass in the slot wide open and shoots it straight into the goalies chest because he F(*^) up. Is that considered a High danger shot?

More research reveals that this is the definition of a "scoring chance:"

A) In the low danger zone, unblocked rebounds and rush shots only.
B) In the medium danger zone, all unblocked shots.
C) In the high danger zone, all shot attempts (since blocked shots taken here may be more representative of more “wide-open nets”, though we don’t know this for sure.)

http://blog.war-on-ice.co...defining-scoring-chances/

I just don't know how you can analyze and record this at the speed in which the game is played.
- Der Kaiser

The problem is they go too deep in some areas, but not deep enough in others. If you're shooting from 1' out but the goalie is right in front of you and the only place you can shoot the puck is right into him, that's not a high danger chance. And my aforementioned middle-slot shot.

More research reveals that this is the definition of a "scoring chance:"

A) In the low danger zone, unblocked rebounds and rush shots only.
B) In the medium danger zone, all unblocked shots.
C) In the high danger zone, all shot attempts (since blocked shots taken here may be more representative of more “wide-open nets”, though we don’t know this for sure.)

http://blog.war-on-ice.co...defining-scoring-chances/

I just don't know how you can analyze and record this at the speed in which the game is played.
- Der Kaiser

Replay every shot in slow motion after the game?

To be fair, this fits Hasek to a T too.
- Wetbandit1

Hasek was also a freak of nature athletically speaking. He was beyond "fish out of water" though. More like beached shark.

I think Clemson pulls off the upset.
- ImThatGuy

I hope the SEC gets herpes.

If a guy gets a pass in the slot wide open and shoots it straight into the goalies chest because he F(*^) up. Is that considered a High danger shot?
- ImThatGuy

Yes, I laid out 2 examples a few posts up on 2 totally different shots from the same place on the ice with 2 drastically different likely outcomes.

I hope the SEC gets herpes.
- jochfr

Likely already do. Over 90% of people have some strain of it.

Hasek was also a freak of nature athletically speaking. He was beyond "fish out of water" though. More like beached shark.
- BeadyEyedDouche

He was the exception that proves the rule.

The problem is they go too deep in some areas, but not deep enough in others. If you're shooting from 1' out but the goalie is right in front of you and the only place you can shoot the puck is right into him, that's not a high danger chance. And my aforementioned middle-slot shot.
- Wetbandit1

It's the same thing for all stats, numbers etc. When in larger samples there more accurate.

Sam Reinhart got an assist the other night because he made a bad pass that deflected to Ristolainen, who then fed Eichel.

If the pass went where Reinhart wanted it to, it wouldn't have been a chance, but he ends up with an assist. That doesn't mean all his assists could be flawed.

Likely already do. Over 90% of people have some strain of it.
- Wetbandit1

(frank)...

This is all true, but I don't think there is too much discrepancy in 2 on 1's or breakaways which we do not give up a ton of.

I don't think Lehner is a bad goalie, I think as of today, he's average, maybe slightly above because it seems he doesn't give up a ton of softees.

My issue is that goaltending is so easy to find. In fact Chad Johnson, and Anders Nilsson have been better than Lehner, and they cost almost nothing
- sbroads24

Lehner is no savior, and we all know that.

I could easily have seen Murray taking Samsonov with the 21st pick had they kept it, as the sure to be nuclear reaction after on this board would have been priceless.

To be serious, the problem I have is that the trade that continues to be rehashed a billion times is in the past and I don't see where it helps comparing a player to the trade he was in either instead of his current play or even with his current play.

Evaluate his current play, how you think he will improve, and go from there.

With that said, why do people just assume Lehner is going to get some giant deal after this season?

A bridge makes way too much sense, especially with Petersen.

Because Murray has made moves in the past that others hate, we now must assume he will always make a move we all hate going forward? Not sure that makes even a little sense.

I will hope that the lack of giving up the 8th overall for Fowler and the deal Murray was able to sign with both McCabe and Risto are signs he is learning on the job.

Of all the moves Murray has made, the only things the team will miss long term, potentially, are the two picks given up in the first round of the 2015 draft.

I don't believe any of the other picks or players are much to worry about, even guys like McNabb and Zadorov.

He was the exception that proves the rule.
- Wetbandit1

I brought so much supplies home

First time bringing this home..( maybe it will taste like the subs)