It was a struggle to watch that game last night, reminded me of the Ralph Krueger era Sabres, a real snoozefest.
You can pick your favorite whipping boy from the front office down to the players and coaching staff to make a case against him.
Interesting. Moment from Granato about the team not shooting enough...I thought the exact opposite of shots taken from traditional low danger areas. To me they didn't seem to get into middle alot.
Also, somebody mentioned Greeway being invisible out there...he was, I had to search for him. He certainly didn't make his presence felt..NStatTrick shows 0 hits given, 3 taken. I hope that isn't what they paid a 2nd and 5th (?) for...very underwhelming for a 6'6" 225 guy. Should be more of a bull dozer than a drive by guy.

Stop blaming this loss on Tuch's absence. The Sabres have plenty of scorers. Lets face it the Sabres play was pathetic and uninspired. Totally unacceptable in so many ways.

No mention of how massive the impact is on the lineup with Tuch being out for weeks?
- kingcong39

The islanders are missing their best player and have been for a month + now…

The islanders are missing their best player and have been for a month + now…
- ImThatGuy

They are not an offensive team and they picked up a better goal scorer than Barzal.
Tuch is a much bigger loss to the Sabres than Barzal to the Isles

The islanders are missing their best player and have been for a month + now…
- ImThatGuy

EXACTLY....... Unless they had 3 or 4 of their best players out then injuries are just an excuse...

The islanders are missing their best player and have been for a month + now…
- ImThatGuy

Do you have a point...?

They are not an offensive team and they picked up a better goal scorer than Barzal.
Tuch is a much bigger loss to the Sabres than Barzal to the Isles
- lulags

Come on... They Sabres have 5 20 goal scorers and a ton of offensive talent.... They just sucked... Plain and simple... They allowed themselves to be manhandled by a team with less talent then them.

Stop blaming this loss on Tuch's absence. The Sabres have plenty of scorers. Lets face it the Sabres play was pathetic and uninspired. Totally unacceptable in so many ways.
- rapperray

The Sabres get the bulk of their offense from three forwards, one of which is out of the lineup.

They don't have enough scoring without him

Come on... They Sabres have 5 20 goal scorers and a ton of offensive talent.... They just sucked... Plain and simple... They allowed themselves to be manhandled by a team with less talent then them.
- rapperray

Less talent?

Let's start with the talent in goal on both teams...

The Sabres get the bulk of their offense from three forwards, one of which is out of the lineup.

They don't have enough scoring without him
- kingcong39

You are describing every team in the NHL. They all get the bulk of their scoring from the number 1 line... Tuch's injury is and excuse...

Do you have a point...?
- kingcong39

Yes

Islanders lose their best forward - non issue

Sabres lose Tuch - they just can’t afford these kinds of injuries.

You can’t blame injuries and then turn around and say injuries for other teams don’t matter.

Come on... They Sabres have 5 20 goal scorers and a ton of offensive talent.... They just sucked... Plain and simple... They allowed themselves to be manhandled by a team with less talent then them.
- rapperray

They had 2 fringe AHL defensemen in their lineup. Not disagreeing that the effort could have been better or that we have plenty of offensive depth, just purely stating the obvious fact that Tuch is a much bigger impact player to the Sabres than Barzal to the isles

Less talent?

Let's start with the talent in goal on both teams...
- kingcong39

UPL outplayed their goaltender last night... For Gods sake they had 50 shots on him... The sabres allowed the Islanders to stand around his net all game...

My eye test says he's been better than a 1/10 defensively, although maybe that's just because I'm grading on a scale as a rookie. It can be tough to accept biases even when recognized
- Hank Balling

I have a question but admit I am only a bit better than a novice at analytics when I ask it. It’s nice to have the charts because they help you to visualize where a player is at both as an individual and in comparison to other players generally and against others in the player’s position. Sounds great. However, as you say here, you did not see him as a 1 out of ten on defense. Neither did I.

So that leads me to my question. I wonder how reliable these numbers are. Aren’t they just the results of one man’s or one organization’s determination of what factors are important and which are not and analyzed through a gradient they they come up with? Aren’t these statistics just the result of what they think is actually important, especially when individual elements of a particular analytic are graded in many cases as to quality, determined alone again through the eye of the guy putting together the analytic. High danger chances being just one example of grading. There is a huge subjective element in determining which shot is in fact a HDC. Again, not trying to be snarky, but why should I trust them? Is there any way to test these numbers for accuracy?

People ridicule plus/minus but that is a measure that I can actually go back and watch games and confirm myself. I don’t need a computer let alone knowing whatever statistical formula the developers of any specific analytic uses to come up with their numbers. I don’t even need a scorecard. If I want to I can just watch the games over and figure it out for myself. The numbers are verifiable by anyone.

Ya I know the argument that a player might not have had anything to do with a goal, or may have just come into or off of the ice when a goal is scored. So what? Can’t the exact same thing be said of any shot that is the basis of all corsi or fenwick statistics which are in turn the basis for a lot of analytics. Except with them the possibility of error is exponential. With “shots” not only do we have to worry about whether a player has nothing to do with a shot being taken or defended, or whether the player just stepped onto the ice or left it when the shot was taken but then we also need to rely on the determination of whether a “shot” was actually a shot in the first place. And there are generally at least ten times more opportunities to be wrong in that simple measure each have for each team. At least with plus/minus, I know a shot was taken (not counting kicks but that is another story). That whole variable is gone. Maybe I am old but I like simple and verifiable.

So, I guess my question(s) is(are), with the understanding that I still use these analytics myself, how much can we rely on them? How can we prove their reliability as more than just one man’s or organization’s opinion? What makes the developers of one analytic or another the measure of what is a valuable and reliable statistic or not?

Again, just looking for some education.

I have a question but admit I am only a bit better than a novice at analytics when I ask it. It’s nice to have the charts because they help you to visualize where a player is at both as an individual and in comparison to other players generally and against others in the player’s position. Sounds great. However, as you say here, you did not see him as a 1 out of ten on defense. Neither did I.

So that leads me to my question. I wonder how reliable these numbers are. Aren’t they just the results of one man’s or one organization’s determination of what factors are important and which are not and analyzed through a gradient they they come up with? Aren’t these statistics just the result of what they think is actually important, especially when individual elements of a particular analytic are graded in many cases as to quality, determined alone again through the eye of the guy putting together the analytic. High danger chances being just one example of grading. There is a huge subjective element in determining which shot is in fact a HDC. Again, not trying to be snarky, but why should I trust them? Is there any way to test these numbers for accuracy?

People ridicule plus/minus but that is a measure that I can actually go back and watch games and confirm myself. I don’t need a computer let alone knowing whatever statistical formula the developers of any specific analytic uses to come up with their numbers. I don’t even need a scorecard. If I want to I can just watch the games over and figure it out for myself. The numbers are verifiable by anyone.

Ya I know the argument that a player might not have had anything to do with a goal, or may have just come into or off of the ice when a goal is scored. So what? Can’t the exact same thing be said of any shot that is the basis of all corsi or fenwick statistics which are in turn the basis for a lot of analytics. Except with them the possibility of error is exponential. With “shots” not only do we have to worry about whether a player has nothing to do with a shot being taken or defended, or whether the player just stepped onto the ice or left it when the shot was taken but then we also need to rely on the determination of whether a “shot” was actually a shot in the first place. And there are generally at least ten times more opportunities to be wrong in that simple measure each have for each team. At least with plus/minus, I know a shot was taken (not counting kicks but that is another story). That whole variable is gone. Maybe I am old but I like simple and verifiable.

So, I guess my question(s) is(are), with the understanding that I still use these analytics myself, how much can we rely on them? How can we prove their reliability as more than just one man’s or organization’s opinion? What makes the developers of one analytic or another the measure of what is a valuable and reliable statistic or not?

Again, just looking for some education.
- sabrebuzz

Can't we just watch the game to see who played well and who didn't?

Yes

Islanders lose their best forward - non issue

Sabres lose Tuch - they just can’t afford these kinds of injuries.

You can’t blame injuries and then turn around and say injuries for other teams don’t matter.
- ImThatGuy

Who said injuries for the other team don't matter?

The absence of Tuch is one of many reasons the Sabres lost last night.

Acting like the team has enough scoring when one near 30 goal scorer is out of the lineup and another 20 goal scorer hasn't scored in 15 games now is shortsighted.

You are describing every team in the NHL. They all get the bulk of their scoring from the number 1 line... Tuch's injury is and excuse...
- rapperray

You said 5 20 goal scorers.

They effectively had 3 on the ice last night.

One was out injured, and another has been an empty uniform.

But sure, they have enough offense...

You said 5 20 goal scorers.

They effectively had 3 on the ice last night.

One was out injured, and another has been an empty uniform.

But sure, they have enough offense...
- kingcong39

They lost because they allowed the Islanders to do what they wanted in the Sabres zone... 50 shots for a team that likes to play cozy in their own zone is unacceptable...

They lost because they allowed the Islanders to do what they wanted in the Sabres zone... 50 shots for a team that likes to play cozy in their own zone is unacceptable...
- rapperray

Where are you getting 50 shots from?

They lost because they often lose to teams that play a heavy defensive structure, as the Sabres only seem to be able to produce offense off the rush.

Forechecking is not their strong suit. It's a big weakness.

Where are you getting 50 shots from?

They lost because they often lose to teams that play a heavy defensive structure, as the Sabres only seem to be able to produce offense off the rush.

Forechecking is not their strong suit. It's a big weakness.
- kingcong39

ESPN during the broadcast showed the islanders having 47 shots with time left in the 3rd.

NHL now shows 38.

Confusing.

I'm sorry, that's asinine.

If it is true, then he needs to go, ASAP. Because he's obviously not up to the job.

He just didn't want to give up a 1st, which is equally asinine. We could only hope to have a mid 1st be the player Chychrun is today.
- Wetbandit1

Why would he lie about that? Does him no good to lie to everyone. That doesn’t seem like something he would do

So stop crying about Chychrun. It will be okay. We will survive.

Samuelsson out hurts a lot

ESPN during the broadcast showed the islanders having 47 shots with time left in the 3rd.

NHL now shows 38.

Confusing.
- ImThatGuy

The ESPN broadcast was wrong.

They had 60 shots on net overall, but 39 on the goaltender.

The Sabres had 59 shots overall, but missed the net a ton.

They got badly beaten in high danger chances, which is a recurring theme this season.

Why would he lie about that? Does him no good to lie to everyone. That doesn’t seem like something he would do

So stop crying about Chychrun. It will be okay. We will survive.

Samuelsson out hurts a lot
- Sabretooth9

Why would a GM lie?
“Jason Botterill is our GM going forward”
“Lindy ain’t going nowhere”

Both fired shortly after.
Teams lie alllllll the time.

Is the coyotes GM lying when he says all he wanted was picks?

I have a question but admit I am only a bit better than a novice at analytics when I ask it. It’s nice to have the charts because they help you to visualize where a player is at both as an individual and in comparison to other players generally and against others in the player’s position. Sounds great. However, as you say here, you did not see him as a 1 out of ten on defense. Neither did I.

So that leads me to my question. I wonder how reliable these numbers are. Aren’t they just the results of one man’s or one organization’s determination of what factors are important and which are not and analyzed through a gradient they they come up with? Aren’t these statistics just the result of what they think is actually important, especially when individual elements of a particular analytic are graded in many cases as to quality, determined alone again through the eye of the guy putting together the analytic. High danger chances being just one example of grading. There is a huge subjective element in determining which shot is in fact a HDC. Again, not trying to be snarky, but why should I trust them? Is there any way to test these numbers for accuracy?

People ridicule plus/minus but that is a measure that I can actually go back and watch games and confirm myself. I don’t need a computer let alone knowing whatever statistical formula the developers of any specific analytic uses to come up with their numbers. I don’t even need a scorecard. If I want to I can just watch the games over and figure it out for myself. The numbers are verifiable by anyone.

Ya I know the argument that a player might not have had anything to do with a goal, or may have just come into or off of the ice when a goal is scored. So what? Can’t the exact same thing be said of any shot that is the basis of all corsi or fenwick statistics which are in turn the basis for a lot of analytics. Except with them the possibility of error is exponential. With “shots” not only do we have to worry about whether a player has nothing to do with a shot being taken or defended, or whether the player just stepped onto the ice or left it when the shot was taken but then we also need to rely on the determination of whether a “shot” was actually a shot in the first place. And there are generally at least ten times more opportunities to be wrong in that simple measure each have for each team. At least with plus/minus, I know a shot was taken (not counting kicks but that is another story). That whole variable is gone. Maybe I am old but I like simple and verifiable.

So, I guess my question(s) is(are), with the understanding that I still use these analytics myself, how much can we rely on them? How can we prove their reliability as more than just one man’s or organization’s opinion? What makes the developers of one analytic or another the measure of what is a valuable and reliable statistic or not?

Again, just looking for some education.
- sabrebuzz

The metrics that make up the defense numbers for Evolving Hockey are based on the game by game data available to the public by the NHL.

They heavily rely on shot, shot location, and shooter accuracy to make up the numbers you see.

Example: when Dahlin is on the ice, there are less high danger chances and more shots further away from the net then when Power is on the ice.

I don't believe the publicly available game data includes full puck retrieval or outlet passing information.

That's a big hole in the data.

UPL outplayed their goaltender last night... For Gods sake they had 50 shots on him... The sabres allowed the Islanders to stand around his net all game...
- rapperray

They do every game, having people in front of are net alone is nothing new. Losing Tuch Hurts more than just are offense. He is one of the better back checkers on the team and good along the boards. It disrupt s the offense cause lines change.