Jauronimo Posted February 4, 2020 Share Posted February 4, 2020 16 minutes ago, K-9 said: Nothing against any of them, but until they DO possess the physical maturity required, I’m not expecting any of them to be top 6 contributors next season. Particularly in the case with Mitts as he’s shown absolutely NOTHING in the way of the dedication and discipline required to put in the work to achieve that change. WTF do you call this? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stony Posted February 4, 2020 Share Posted February 4, 2020 3 minutes ago, Jauronimo said: WTF do you call this? Man's game, beatch. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
plenzmd1 Posted February 4, 2020 Share Posted February 4, 2020 Who knew, Pysyk moved to forward and gets a hat trick last night. Good for him! 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnC Posted February 4, 2020 Share Posted February 4, 2020 55 minutes ago, plenzmd1 said: Who knew, Pysyk moved to forward and gets a hat trick last night. Good for him! The twitter responses to Paul Hamilton's absence are funny. It's good to know that he is still with WGR. I thought that he was either sick or that WGR was retrenching because of the tight business environment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnC Posted February 4, 2020 Share Posted February 4, 2020 The below link is an article by John Wawrow from the AP. The article deals with the issue of the team struggling and the potential for things spiraling out of control like last year. It's not going to happen with a Krueger coached team because players who falter end up watching the games from the team's suite. Whether the team is winning or losing the players are held accountable for their play. JW points out that this team has gone through three stretches: 9-2-1, 1-7-1 and 13-13-4. The last .500 stretch appears to be what this incomplete team is. https://apnews.com/d972c25cebe48be1a74d3e5559858fca?view=getnewpost Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shrader Posted February 4, 2020 Share Posted February 4, 2020 16 hours ago, BillsFan4 said: It’s a rule in place between the NHL and CHL, basically to make sure that they have talent for their leagues. https://www.stanleycupofchowder.com/2012/8/1/3213217/bruins-nhl-chl-ahl-agreement-CBA-talks-2012 So Cozens would have to go back to juniors for 1 more season if he doesn’t make the Sabres next year. Then after that, if he didn’t make the Sabres they could send him to the AHL. With certain players (like Alex Nylander for ex) whose rights are held by European clubs, they can play in the AHL right away. The only thing I can't find good details on is that part about completing 4 years in major junior. I don't know what exactly qualifies as a full year. This is Cozen's third full season in the WHL, but he as played 3 games and a full playoff schedule the year before that. I assume they don't count that as a full year, but I haven't found anything to back up that assumption. And yes @JohnC, he'll be given every chance to make the Sabres' team out of camp next year. Me personally, I don't plan on expecting a thing from him next year though. We've been burned too often by rushing these kids and I can't see him making or breaking this team next year. I lean towards the cautious approach at this point. But hey, maybe he does step up and show he's ready. I'll gladly accept that outcome if it happens. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
4merper4mer Posted February 4, 2020 Share Posted February 4, 2020 1 hour ago, JohnC said: The below link is an article by John Wawrow from the AP. The article deals with the issue of the team struggling and the potential for things spiraling out of control like last year. It's not going to happen with a Krueger coached team because players who falter end up watching the games from the team's suite. Whether the team is winning or losing the players are held accountable for their play. JW points out that this team has gone through three stretches: 9-2-1, 1-7-1 and 13-13-4. The last .500 stretch appears to be what this incomplete team is. https://apnews.com/d972c25cebe48be1a74d3e5559858fca?view=getnewpost It not just incomplete it is wildly imbalanced. The coaches job is to get the most from his players and Krueger has pretty much done that. The problem is that almost every bit of the production is from one guy. What would Krueger or anyone get out of the team if Eichel got hurt? Botts was gifted Eichel AND Dahlin and the team is still struggling. It is not ok that a GM + Eichel + Dahlin can't get past this point in three years. And 13-13-4 is NOT .500. There were 64 points awarded in those games and the Sabres got 30 of them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snafu Posted February 4, 2020 Share Posted February 4, 2020 3 hours ago, plenzmd1 said: Who knew, Pysyk moved to forward and gets a hat trick last night. Good for him! I've said it before. They should either move Montour to forward or trade him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
K-9 Posted February 4, 2020 Share Posted February 4, 2020 16 minutes ago, 4merper4mer said: It not just incomplete it is wildly imbalanced. The coaches job is to get the most from his players and Krueger has pretty much done that. The problem is that almost every bit of the production is from one guy. What would Krueger or anyone get out of the team if Eichel got hurt? Botts was gifted Eichel AND Dahlin and the team is still struggling. It is not ok that a GM + Eichel + Dahlin can't get past this point in three years. And 13-13-4 is NOT .500. There were 64 points awarded in those games and the Sabres got 30 of them. 13-13-4 = 30 games, 60 available points. The Sabres got 30 of those 60 points or 50%. That’s .500 and that’s how the NHL looks at it as standings are based on accumulated points and not won/lost records. What am I missing in your formula? 3 hours ago, plenzmd1 said: Who knew, Pysyk moved to forward and gets a hat trick last night. Good for him! Amd just like that, Pysyk ties Evan Rodriguez for goals scored on the season. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
4merper4mer Posted February 4, 2020 Share Posted February 4, 2020 (edited) 10 minutes ago, K-9 said: 13-13-4 = 30 games, 60 available points. The Sabres got 30 of those 60 points or 50%. That’s .500 and that’s how the NHL looks at it as standings are based on accumulated points and not won/lost records. What am I missing in your formula? Amd just like that, Pysyk ties Evan Rodriguez for goals scored on the season. In the Sabres 13 wins they got 26 points Inthe Sabres 13 regulation losses their opponent got 26 points In the Sabres 4 OT losses their opponent got 8 points, the Sabres got 4 for at total of 12 26+26+12=64 What is unknown is how many times the Sabres won in OT which adds to the 64. If it was 4 games then the Sabres got 30/68 I understand that the total any one team can get is 60 but a .500 team gets 50% of the awarded pints, not the available points. To simplify it, an 0-0-1 team is not a .500 team. Edited February 4, 2020 by 4merper4mer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
K-9 Posted February 4, 2020 Share Posted February 4, 2020 4 minutes ago, 4merper4mer said: In the Sabres 13 wins they got 26 points Inthe Sabres 13 regulation losses their opponent got 26 points In the Sabres 4 OT losses their opponent got 8 points, the Sabres got 4 for at total of 12 26+26+12=64 What is unknown is how many times the Sabres won in OT which adds to the 64. If it was 4 games then the Sabres got 30/68 I understand that the total any one team can get is 60 but a .500 team gets 50% of the awarded pints, not the available points. To simplify it, an 0-0-1 team is not a .500 team. I appreciate the clarification and I’ve heard that argument over the years. I think it puts way too fine a point on it, though. If the NHL awarded standings placed on W/L records instead of points accumulated, I think it would be more pertinent. But as it stands, a 1-0 team has a winning record but a winless 0-0-3 team is ahead of them in the standings. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
4merper4mer Posted February 4, 2020 Share Posted February 4, 2020 (edited) 8 minutes ago, K-9 said: I appreciate the clarification and I’ve heard that argument over the years. I think it puts way too fine a point on it, though. If the NHL awarded standings placed on W/L records instead of points accumulated, I think it would be more pertinent. But as it stands, a 1-0 team has a winning record but a winless 0-0-3 team is ahead of them in the standings. A team that goes 0-0-82 gets 82 points. If you add up points from all 31 teams it will invariably exceed 31*82 or 2,452 which renders that team below average. It's not really splitting heirs to call them below .500 because an overtime loss is a loss. IMO it should be that a regulation win nets 3 points which would make every game have equal value. It is odd that some games are valued higher than others in the current system. It probably evens out over time but not for every team every year. Your example isn't a good one because the 1-0 team has two games in hand. If you made them 1-2-0 then you are correct and the 1-2-0 team is at best tied with the three teams that beat the 0-0-3 team. Edited February 4, 2020 by 4merper4mer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
K-9 Posted February 4, 2020 Share Posted February 4, 2020 13 minutes ago, 4merper4mer said: A team that goes 0-0-82 gets 82 points. If you add up points from all 31 teams it will invariably exceed 31*82 or 2,452 which renders that team below average. It's not really splitting heirs to call them below .500 because an overtime loss is a loss. IMO it should be that a regulation win nets 3 points which would make every game have equal value. It is odd that some games are valued higher than others in the current system. It probably evens out over time but not for every team every year. Your example isn't a good one because the 1-0 team has two games in hand. If you made them 1-2-0 then you are correct and the 1-2-0 team is at best tied with the three teams that beat the 0-0-3 team. So, is this just an exercise in new ways to say a team sucks? If I give my example team a 1-2 losing record, it wouldn’t have reflected the idea that having a winning record doesn’t necessarily get you ahead of teams with less wins. But good example or bad example, as long as the NHL awards standings based on points gained out of points available, W/L record just isn’t the final arbiter. Like I said, I can appreciate the argument, but it puts way too fine a point on it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stony Posted February 4, 2020 Share Posted February 4, 2020 $6 tickets on Stubhub for tonight and Thursday. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shrader Posted February 4, 2020 Share Posted February 4, 2020 42 minutes ago, K-9 said: I appreciate the clarification and I’ve heard that argument over the years. I think it puts way too fine a point on it, though. If the NHL awarded standings placed on W/L records instead of points accumulated, I think it would be more pertinent. But as it stands, a 1-0 team has a winning record but a winless 0-0-3 team is ahead of them in the standings. There certainly is a value to that OTL column that people like to ignore far too often. Just look at the standings. Boston has the second most points in the entire league and a big part of that is the OTL. Without it, they're not even in first place in the division, let alone second overall in the league. It will be something worth watching come playoff time, to see how that translates to post-season play, if at all. True overtime records are kind of hard to find online, short of looking through individual schedules. They have the ROW column, but that doesn't tell you how many times a team scored and won in OT, it's just shootout wins subtracted from overall wins. So looking at the standings, Boston is awful in shootouts, losing all 12 they've been it. But I can't easily see how many OT games they have won. But even that probably doesn't mean all that much. 3-on-3 hockey is not something you'll see in the playoffs (just imagine the refs calling that many penalties in OT). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
4merper4mer Posted February 4, 2020 Share Posted February 4, 2020 20 minutes ago, K-9 said: So, is this just an exercise in new ways to say a team sucks? If I give my example team a 1-2 losing record, it wouldn’t have reflected the idea that having a winning record doesn’t necessarily get you ahead of teams with less wins. But good example or bad example, as long as the NHL awards standings based on points gained out of points available, W/L record just isn’t the final arbiter. Like I said, I can appreciate the argument, but it puts way too fine a point on it. If you lose more games than you win you are simply not a .500 team. This is true whether you look at the record or take a percentage of awarded points. If a team is 0-0-1 they have one of two available points but only one of three awarded points. Standings are determined by awarded points. It has nothing to do with whether a team sucks or not. In the NFL a 15-0-1 team is technically undefeated. In the NHL an 81-0-1 team has been defeated. An overtime loss is a loss and a 13-13-4 team has lost 17 times. I think the .500 misperceptions goes back to when the NHL had ties and awarded 1 point each. It's an illusion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
K-9 Posted February 4, 2020 Share Posted February 4, 2020 44 minutes ago, shrader said: There certainly is a value to that OTL column that people like to ignore far too often. Just look at the standings. Boston has the second most points in the entire league and a big part of that is the OTL. Without it, they're not even in first place in the division, let alone second overall in the league. It will be something worth watching come playoff time, to see how that translates to post-season play, if at all. True overtime records are kind of hard to find online, short of looking through individual schedules. They have the ROW column, but that doesn't tell you how many times a team scored and won in OT, it's just shootout wins subtracted from overall wins. So looking at the standings, Boston is awful in shootouts, losing all 12 they've been it. But I can't easily see how many OT games they have won. But even that probably doesn't mean all that much. 3-on-3 hockey is not something you'll see in the playoffs (just imagine the refs calling that many penalties in OT). I don’t think I’ve remotely suggested that wins aren’t important or that the better teams have far more of them than the worse teams. That’s plain to see. But points, regardless how they are acquired, are the determinant factor in the standings. If you amass half the points available, you are a .500 team and that’s how the league looks at it. But yeah, win and the points take care of themselves. Much more preferable to be sure. 38 minutes ago, 4merper4mer said: If you lose more games than you win you are simply not a .500 team. This is true whether you look at the record or take a percentage of awarded points. If a team is 0-0-1 they have one of two available points but only one of three awarded points. Standings are determined by awarded points. It has nothing to do with whether a team sucks or not. In the NFL a 15-0-1 team is technically undefeated. In the NHL an 81-0-1 team has been defeated. An overtime loss is a loss and a 13-13-4 team has lost 17 times. I think the .500 misperceptions goes back to when the NHL had ties and awarded 1 point each. It's an illusion. Too fine a point, my man, too fine a point. Good point about ties though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
plenzmd1 Posted February 4, 2020 Share Posted February 4, 2020 Shades of the Philadelphia flu tonight? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnC Posted February 4, 2020 Share Posted February 4, 2020 The below 10 min link is Sportsnets' Sam Cosentino on WGR talking about the draft. At the end of the link he talks glowingly about Cozens. https://wgr550.radio.com/media/audio-channel/02-04-sportsnets-sam-cosentino-with-howard-and-jeremy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shrader Posted February 4, 2020 Share Posted February 4, 2020 52 minutes ago, K-9 said: I don’t think I’ve remotely suggested that wins aren’t important or that the better teams have far more of them than the worse teams. That’s plain to see. But points, regardless how they are acquired, are the determinant factor in the standings. If you amass half the points available, you are a .500 team and that’s how the league looks at it. But yeah, win and the points take care of themselves. Much more preferable to be sure. I agree. Winning percentage, no matter how you want to define it is a pointless stat. Points are all that matters. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillsFan4 Posted February 4, 2020 Author Share Posted February 4, 2020 6 hours ago, plenzmd1 said: Who knew, Pysyk moved to forward and gets a hat trick last night. Good for him! Glad to hear about PHam. You had me worried. After you mentioned that, I started paying more attention and noticed he hadn’t written or tweeted anything in over a week (and he always writes post-game articles). 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
plenzmd1 Posted February 4, 2020 Share Posted February 4, 2020 WTH, +160 I am in. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted February 5, 2020 Share Posted February 5, 2020 uhhhmmmm ..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
\GoBillsInDallas/ Posted February 5, 2020 Share Posted February 5, 2020 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
May Day 10 Posted February 5, 2020 Share Posted February 5, 2020 Good team. Almost there. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
plenzmd1 Posted February 5, 2020 Share Posted February 5, 2020 2 hours ago, plenzmd1 said: WTH, +160 I am in. Man, eventually these $20 bets gunna add up to some real money! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
plenzmd1 Posted February 5, 2020 Share Posted February 5, 2020 now that’s just dumb. Someone will Buy ya a beer for that jersey, and it’s a 26 at that! yay Botteril. Guess he said on his interview today the win over Columbus was a turning point and critical! Lordy, how far can they fall. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
4merper4mer Posted February 5, 2020 Share Posted February 5, 2020 9 minutes ago, plenzmd1 said: now that’s just dumb. Someone will Buy ya a beer for that jersey, and it’s a 26 at that! yay Botteril. Guess he said on his interview today the win over Columbus was a turning point and critical! Lordy, how far can they fall. When the jersey was first thrown it looked like it had an upward trajectory. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ALF Posted February 5, 2020 Share Posted February 5, 2020 Carter Hutton 4 -13 Jonas Johansson 2 -14 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillsFan4 Posted February 5, 2020 Author Share Posted February 5, 2020 (edited) This team is so mentally fragile. They can’t overcome any in game adversity. We need a new mix of players, and more talent. No coach is going to do much better with this crap team. I don’t see how Botterill survives if the end of this season keeps trending the way it’s been since the all star break. They had this big home stand and so far they’re 1 for 4... Fans are going to completely revolt if they keep collapsing. It’s going to get ugly. I’d have to say that I’m on the “fire botterill” bandwagon. I was trying to be patient and find reasons to not lose all hope in botterill. He just hasn’t done nearly enough and I have no faith he can fix this mess. This is year 3 and I see no improvement from the team he took over. They may actually be worse, as far as the talent level. His only good moves seem to be Jokiharju (LOVE that trade) and Skinner (But Buffalo and Toronto were the only 2 teams on his no move list). But he also subtracted ROR and Kane. i think the Sabres need a veteran GM. Enough rookies. This job is too big for a rookie. Edited February 5, 2020 by BillsFan4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
plenzmd1 Posted February 5, 2020 Share Posted February 5, 2020 (edited) I would not mind a bit of old school “ that was not an acceptable performance on home ice, and the organization and the fans deserve better” from Ralph instaed of his usual “‘we backed down a bit when adversity hit but we will learn form it and keep our heads up and I love coaching this group “‘ usual schtick. Edited February 5, 2020 by plenzmd1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bbb Posted February 5, 2020 Share Posted February 5, 2020 When was the last season we were even remotely in a playoff race? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillsFan4 Posted February 5, 2020 Author Share Posted February 5, 2020 2 hours ago, plenzmd1 said: I would not mind a bit of old school “ that was not an acceptable performance on home ice, and the organization and the fans deserve better” from Ralph instaed of his usual “‘we backed down a bit when adversity hit but we will learn form it and keep our heads up and I love coaching this group “‘ usual schtick. That pretty much is what he said, actually. https://www.nhl.com/sabres/news/sabres-avalanche-recap-highlights-sam-reinhart/c-314645400 Quote Reinhart's goal - a deflection with nine-tenths of a second remaining - could have swung momentum. Instead, mistakes piled up in the following period. "What happened then the next 20 minutes (is) truly unacceptable, and we have to do a deep dive on that," Krueger said. "Really disappointed. The goal that we scored at the end of the first seemed to bring us back into that start. Our inability to deal with their speed and their transition for that period of time, we seemed to be well prepared for it. "I thought we began by playing the game we wanted to play, but we just deserted it. The final result is what it is. It's a slap where you need some more time than what I've had right now to digest. Again, we have no time for a big recovery. But, yeah, we're very disappointed right now and quite an unacceptable result." Quote "I don't think it's fair to put this on Carter," Krueger said. "People look at the shot clock, but they outchanced us. They outchanced us, even when the shots were quite equal there. It wouldn't be fair it put this one on him, it's all of us - coaches, players - all us together. This is on all of us. We need to pull together and react to this. We have a game here at home in two nights. We need to show a different side and push." “We're in a difficult situation, especially here at home, where the fans have been so loyal, are so passionate about the Sabres," added Krueger. "We want to give them things to cheer about. We didn't do it now, but we have some home games coming up here, so let's give them what they deserve." Reinhart had some things to say too - Quote "I think there's a lot of reflecting that needs to be going on and guys need to demand a lot more out of themselves than they have," Reinhart said afterward. I think it's all coming down to the players at this point," Reinhart said. "I think that the systems and the game plans that are set out for us give us an opportunity to have success. I think it goes back to what I'm trying to preach here. Guys need to demand more out of themselves and a lot of guys need to step the hell up." I appreciate Reinhart saying it, but it just rings so hollow. We’ve heard it literally 100x before. Maybe not from Reinhart, but from plenty of Sabres players. I just don’t know how many of them have it in them to actually step up. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nextmanup Posted February 5, 2020 Share Posted February 5, 2020 2 hours ago, BillsFan4 said: This team is so mentally fragile. They can’t overcome any in game adversity. We need a new mix of players, and more talent. No coach is going to do much better with this crap team. I don’t see how Botterill survives if the end of this season keeps trending the way it’s been since the all star break. They had this big home stand and so far they’re 1 for 4... Fans are going to completely revolt if they keep collapsing. It’s going to get ugly. I’d have to say that I’m on the “fire botterill” bandwagon. I was trying to be patient and find reasons to not lose all hope in botterill. He just hasn’t done nearly enough and I have no faith he can fix this mess. This is year 3 and I see no improvement from the team he took over. They may actually be worse, as far as the talent level. His only good moves seem to be Jokiharju (LOVE that trade) and Skinner (But Buffalo and Toronto were the only 2 teams on his no move list). But he also subtracted ROR and Kane. i think the Sabres need a veteran GM. Enough rookies. This job is too big for a rookie. Talent. The problem is talent, or a lack thereof. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
4merper4mer Posted February 5, 2020 Share Posted February 5, 2020 (edited) 8 hours ago, plenzmd1 said: now that’s just dumb. Someone will Buy ya a beer for that jersey, and it’s a 26 at that! yay Botteril. Guess he said on his interview today the win over Columbus was a turning point and critical! Lordy, how far can they fall. I hope Botts didn't really say that on the heels of his "Cozens in the World juniors finals gives us valuable playoff experience" doozy. Games that are turning points are determined long after further results are in. Ott, Cbus, Col are all just games. Side note since I think now even the most delusional have given up on playoffs: If we miss next year we'll tie the all time longest NHL non-playoff streak. Edited February 5, 2020 by 4merper4mer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
plenzmd1 Posted February 5, 2020 Share Posted February 5, 2020 For @4merper4mer at least Housley is a Sabre who is happy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
apuszczalowski Posted February 5, 2020 Share Posted February 5, 2020 11 hours ago, plenzmd1 said: now that’s just dumb. Someone will Buy ya a beer for that jersey, and it’s a 26 at that! yay Botteril. Guess he said on his interview today the win over Columbus was a turning point and critical! Lordy, how far can they fall. You can get more then a beer if it was a Kiko Bills jersey though....... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillsFan4 Posted February 5, 2020 Author Share Posted February 5, 2020 10 hours ago, Nextmanup said: Talent. The problem is talent, or a lack thereof. Yes, I agree. Mentioned that right at the top of the post you responded to. we need more talent and a new mix of players. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ridgewaycynic2013 Posted February 5, 2020 Share Posted February 5, 2020 Was the jersey one of the cheap knockoffs that last week’s caller Duane was so upset about? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
K-9 Posted February 5, 2020 Share Posted February 5, 2020 13 hours ago, ALF said: Carter Hutton 4 -13 Jonas Johansson 2 -14 Slight correction: Hutton 5-13 Johansson 1-14 Just didn’t want to see Carter Hutton cheated out of his superior stat line. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts