TBN: Sabres' depth issues being masked by high shooting percentages

[Buffaloed]

Interesting article that uses analytics to rationally discuss why there's going to be bumps in the road and reminds people that this is a team in transition. There's a lot more work to be done. The author, Josh Barnett, concludes it will be another month before the coaching develops their best lineup deployment and provides more insight to what they're looking to do at the trade deadline. I think it's a fair assessment. As always, remember to make sure javascript is enabled in your web browser so you don't exceed BN's article limit.

Sabres' depth issues being masked by high shooting percentages

Even when you incorporate shot differentials adjusted for the quality of the shots with Expected Goal percentage, you can see the Sabres were thoroughly tuned. And it was an indiscriminate beating, too – as long as the Eichel line was off the ice, Carter Hutton was seeing a ton of rubber.

The Sabres have shown enough thus far to make me believe in their longer-term sustainability – certainly more so than last season’s roller coaster. But some serious cautionary flags remain with the depth of this lineup. Though it has not impacted their winning to date, the truth is that the Sabres' depth is still being generally outplayed by the opposition. And the reason why it doesn’t seem obvious right now is because most of those players are riding white-hot shooting percentages – the type of shooting percentages that are extremely fleeting in nature and highly susceptible to regression.

Click to read more...

 

[Montag DP]

We will certainly regress. I think any except the most delusional of fans would tell you that we are not a top 5 team in the league. The question is, how far will we regress? At the beginning of the season, most of us would have considered a playoff appearance (or even less than that) as a successful season -- we even have a thread on that. I still feel the same way.

 

[Sabre the Win]

I never thought of us as buyers at the deadline (even if poised for playoffs) so I'm curious to see who we ship if for futures or NHL ready prospects while bringing kids up from Rochester to get with the team and add more depth.

As for the advanced stats, my eyeballs tell me the depth isnt adequate yet but I think this team currently can be wild card material.

Back half of the season is when we will see.

 

[SnuggaRUDE]

It would be almost unthinkable for them not to regress from where they're currently at. A bullish fan could think they're good for the playoffs but only the insane would have thought them favorites for the president's trophy.

 

[Reddawg]

I mean, yeah...we're going to regress somewhat. No one is predicting a 56 win season, even with the way things have gone early on. At the same time, games won in October and November are games you don't have to make up in March and April...I'll take all the early wins they can pile on.

 

[billsandsabres]

skepticism seems to be the clear undertone in most of the writing i see on the bills and sabres. earned, sure, but it's a downer.

 

[Kyndig]

and this is why fancy stats or stat watching fails. Larsson and Girgensons in "the bad zone."

 

[Bferra13]

skepticism seems to be the clear undertone in most of the writing i see on the bills and sabres. earned, sure, but it's a downer.

Agreed, everyone was just sitting around waiting for the cracks in the walls to appear. Now please prove them wrong for once Buffalo (both teams).

 

[Not Sure]

and this is why fancy stats or stat watching fails. Larsson and Girgensons in "the bad zone."

Was going to say the same thing. Any fancy stat that says the LOG line is the teams problem is a bad stat.

 

[Buttons85]

We will certainly regress. I think any except the most delusional of fans would tell you that we are not a top 5 team in the league. The question is, how far will we regress? At the beginning of the season, most of us would have considered a playoff appearance (or even less than that) as a successful season -- we even have a thread on that. I still feel the same way.

ESPN is a delusional fan!

 

[Montag DP]

ESPN is a delusional fan!

View attachment 270523

I meant over a full season.

 

[Tatanka]

Yost is only saying it like it is. Log is tenacious in the o zone, but they do get pinned in the d zone. They are also in the area that screams regressing to their historical mean. What I take from this article is that the underlying metrics point to over achievement by some due to a flawed roster. But we really are a one line team. Or perhaps 1 and a 1/2. Which is true. Goatlending has been way above average and should also regress. We can live with the shortcomings of the Casey line, but not with Mojo and Skinner being handcuffed with Vlad.

 

[old kummelweck]

good power plays have high shooting percentages.

 

[littletonhockeycoach]

Good stuff. I tend to look at things more subjectively. Like in terms of match ups and team vs team playing styles. The Sabres have certainly shown that they play better against certain systems than others. The sample size is small at this point in the season but aside from the fact that there will always be some games where their "legs" just aren't in top form, bigger, fast aggressive and physical teams will continue to give them problems until that part of the equation is balanced.

Still, they are moving forward and it makes the team way more exciting and interesting.

 

[sincerity0]

We will certainly regress. I think any except the most delusional of fans would tell you that we are not a top 5 team in the league. The question is, how far will we regress? At the beginning of the season, most of us would have considered a playoff appearance (or even less than that) as a successful season -- we even have a thread on that. I still feel the same way.

It’s obvious that some regression to a truer mean will occur. It happens to every team whether that’s up or down. My issue is that this team played legitimately solid hockey for the first few games. Maybe 1 or 2 duds in the first 7-9 games or so.

in those games the team had mostly good underlying numbers. Over the last 4-5 games we’ve seen those numbers starting to crack. Some bad games with good goaltending. That’s what makes me nervous. A dam with a big crack ready to burst open.

Even if I try to look at it completely independent of last season I still see a team that’s getting a bit lucky. Maybe not bottom 5 bad, but maybe bottom 10 bad.

 

[jc17]

It’s obvious that some regression to a truer mean will occur. It happens to every team whether that’s up or down. My issue is that this team played legitimately solid hockey for the first few games. Maybe 1 or 2 duds in the first 7-9 games or so.

in those games the team had mostly good underlying numbers. Over the last 4-5 games we’ve seen those numbers starting to crack. Some bad games with good goaltending. That’s what makes me nervous. A dam with a big crack ready to burst open.

Even if I try to look at it completely independent of last season I still see a team that’s getting a bit lucky. Maybe not bottom 5 bad, but maybe bottom 10 bad.

Yeah so 7/13 games we've led in shot attempts, in only 4/13 we've led in expected goals, even when score adjusted, so its not just a matter of protecting a lead. That's not a great sign.

 

[Buffaloed]

I think the key to how they'll respond to adversity is how strong the buy in is to Krueger's system. The effort he puts into communicating with the players, soliciting input, and building consensus is what gives him a huge edge over his predecessors. It's not just Krueger's system. It's THEIR system. They have an ownership stake. With Bylsma and Housley, I think it was more of this is my system. I'm the coach and I know what's best. Now learn it.

What do players say about coaching?
Sept 27, 2019 Athletic article (Ranking the impact of every NHL coach on the team's success)

Nick Foligno:
“I think what happens (when a coach hurts on-ice performance) is you have a coach come in who wants to make a team this certain way, but if you look at the players he has, it doesn’t really work that way. Unfortunately, it happened a couple times in my time in Ottawa. You can see (the coaches) are trying to do a different style but the team is so … heavy in one set of players or built a certain way that it’s not going to work. And instead of embracing that and figuring out a way, they fight against it and it never works and you lose seasons because of it and it’s unfortunate. That’s not a knock on (coaches), because I think they feel that’s the best way they can coach, but sometimes it’s not the best way they can coach that group of players.”

Jakub Voracek:
“In the offensive zone you cannot teach vision. You cannot teach talent, you cannot teach stick-handling. I mean you can a little bit … (but) in the offensive zone you have to create, so it’s up to the players in the offensive zone. How to get there, who is getting there, who is having the puck. On offense you can only give ideas to the players and they have to make the decision.
Every single coach they want to have a good defense. I think it’s harder to teach defense than offense, you have to be good without the puck as a unit, so you shut lanes down.”

Rickard Rakell:
“You have to feel confident in trying to do something on the ice. Not just do something to not make the coach mad. There’s so many things that can actually hold you back. … When you make the mistake and you’re going to get punished for it right away, you’re not going to go out again if you’re not that confident of a player and do what’s right for the team.”

Seth Jones:
“I don’t think you’re hearing about systems too much because at the end of the day everyone has to buy in to whatever system that coach brings. You’re not going to be like ‘I’m doing something else.’ That’s part of team sports. Everyone has to work together to support to have a common goal and to be successful. I think you’re hearing more the communication aspect because that how guys learn. Today, we we’re working on different things on the ice. Coaches have to be able to relay the message they want to relay in a certain way that we get it, we understand it.”

Brian Dumoulin:
(Penguins coach Mike Sullivan) is a good communicator. He’s very straight forward. The way he says and communicates things, there’s not a lot of grey area, that’s first and foremost. That’s something that you want. He doesn’t play a lot of mind games and that’s good as a player. We’re already dealing with a lot of shit as it is, so that’s a great quality he has.”

 

[jc17]

This may help